Bertrand's Postulate asserts that there is a prime between $n$ and $2n$.

Is this the best such upper bound on prime gaps known today, or have stronger estimates been proved? I mean results of the kind:

  • there will always be a prime between $n$ and $2n-2$, or
  • there will always be a prime between $n$ and $cn$ with $1<c<2$?

Was any such improvement proved rigorously, or is Bertrand's Postulate still the best we have?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You can read Wikipedia. There is no reason to ask such a question here. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Sep 27 '14 at 4:39
  • $\begingroup$ There is a nice proof of this from the book "Proofs from the book", which is elementary and you might like. $\endgroup$ – Bombyx mori Sep 27 '14 at 5:11

Yes. See theorem 3 of:

O. Ramar´e, Y. Saouter, Short effective intervals containing primes, J. Number Theory 98 (2003), no. 1.

A related statement states for all $\epsilon > 0$, for sufficiently large $n$, there is a prime between $n, (1+ \epsilon)n$ which is a trivial corollary of the PNT.

For your first question, both of those statements have been proven.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "sufficiently large" makes this a non-generalisation of Bertrands postulate. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Sep 27 '14 at 4:42
  • $\begingroup$ What about my second question? All known primes gaps have been observed to be smaller than n or n-2, with maybe the exception of the largest known prime. $\endgroup$ – Jeffrey Young Sep 27 '14 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ Have you looked at the reference? And what do you mean by "with maybe the exception of the largest known prime"? $\endgroup$ – Mayank Pandey Sep 27 '14 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ @MayankPandey From the largest known prime to the next prime, what is the distance? Let k be the largest known prime. Let u be the next consecutive prime, which is currently unknown. Will u be only slightly less than 2k? $\endgroup$ – Jeffrey Young Sep 27 '14 at 6:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JeffreyYoung: Far from it. The next prime is at most 1.000000000000000025k (Dusart 2010), and probably a lot closer than that. Apparently the result of Baker-Harman-Pintz could be made effective and that would give a much better gap, more like $(1+10^{-9148214})k$, but we don't have that yet. And far better is conjectured, more like $(1+3.11\cdot10^{-17425155})k$. $\endgroup$ – Charles Sep 29 '14 at 14:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.