Thread: Twin Prime Attempt?

This is probably a wild stab and I'm pretty much just expecting as much criticism as I can get

I've had a go at the twin prime problem and here is what I came up with.
It might not be 100% accurate as I haven't been able to get much feedback on it .

Firstly I'd like to state that I'm assuming there is an infinite amount of prime numbers.

To make it easier to visualize and work with I'm going to use a wave function to describe the multiples of a number.
A sin function with a period of 2, starting from 2 will have its x intercepts at multiples of 2.

Starting from 2 as the first prime number, it can be seen that where the previous waves don't intersect the x axis
at integer values then there must be a prime number. For example 2 _ 4 are the intercepts of the sine wave of 2.
3 is a prime. At 5 there is no intercept so that is a prime.

Now the only reason the integers between the multiples of 2 aren't all primes is because they are multiples of the other
primes which I can say as the waves of other primes crossing those points.

It can clearly be seen that as the waves repeat (line up like they were before) then the conditions created by the waves repeat.
I.e., 6 is a common multiple of 2 and 3 and 7 is a prime. again 12 is a multiple of 2 and 3 and 13 is a prime, same for 19,
at 24 we see that the wave of the number 5 prevents 25from being a prime.

Now in the case above the recursion size is 6. The only reason this recursion doesn't create primes after every multiple
of 6 is due to the other waves also passing the numbers that follow multiples of 6 (simply put being factors).

Now for any amount of waves, there will always be a recursion size. Easiest way to find this would just be to cross multiply
the periods of the waves together, or you could find the lowest common multiple of all the waves, either way the waves repeat.

Therefore the initial conditions that caused the first twin numbers must also repeat. These conditions can be altered by the waves
of the newly generated prime numbers. The initial conditions for twin primes can be defined as that a number on either side of a
multiple of 2 is a prime.

Also it may be a bit unclear of what I mean by recursion size, recursion size refers to the conditions previous to the last formed
prime number (as in the waves present at the formation point).

Here lies two possible scenarios.
1. The new waves interfere in such a way that the initial conditions created by the recursion of the waves is impossible.
i.e. the conditions required to make twin primes are impossible.
2. The waves interfere but do not permanently get rid of the conditions required to make twin primes.


Lets assume the first scenario.

I'd like to state that the term step size refers to the minimum difference possible between two prime numbers, initially
we'll assume this to be 2 (as in the case of twins)

Assuming that there cannot be any more twin primes results in the step size increasing to 4. Again the density of the
waves intercepting will increase and the step size will keep on increasing. This doesn't mean that larger step sizes exist
just that there will be none less then the step size until it increases.

Eventually the step size will keep on increasing until it reaches the recursion size. If this does happen that means that
there is such a large density of waves that all the x integer intercepts in a stretch of the length of a recursion sized interval
are being passed though.

This would lead to no more prime numbers being formed as every single digit would have factors and the first premise
of there being infinite prime numbers must be false.

Therefore scenario 2 must be true.




Again I'm not sure at how well this is presented, there might be clear logical errors I did not see or maybe I wasn't
descriptive enough, but that was my crack at it.

If you got any of your own ideas on this problem post em ahead.

I don't have much experience in number theory, but unless you provide a clear explanation of exactly what you mean with all those new terms you introduce and don't bother to define rigorously (or at least clearly), then nobody is going to have a chance of understanding what you wrote here. Meanwhile, you can take a look at the sieve of Erastosthenes, which appears to be something you intended to use.

A small edit: The purpose of this post is not to discourage you from thinking and postulating about the problem (exactly the other way around!), rather to point out that if you speak Chinese to an English speaking audience, they will hear everything but understand zip..

Okay yea I guess its pretty vague.
Recursion - the repeating of the initial conditions requried for a prime

Recursion size - recursion size refers to the period at which the conditions present to form
the last twin prime number are repeated

Step Size - refers to the minimum difference possible between two prime numbers, initially
we'll assume this to be 2 (as in the case of twins), however it is the minimum difference between
two primes that is possible, larger distances are still possible

Originally Posted by Defunkt

The purpose of this post is not to discourage you from thinking and postulating about the problem (exactly the other way around!), rather to point out that if you speak Chinese to an English speaking audience, they will hear everything but understand zip..

No discouragement taken, what always puts me off from looking at a problem is when people use language and never describe it. If there's any particular parts that don't make sense please point them out.

Originally Posted by Totype

Okay yea I guess its pretty vague.
Recursion - the repeating of the initial conditions requried for a prime This is still not very well-defined. What are the conditions required for a prime?

Recursion size - recursion size refers to the period at which the conditions present to form
the last twin prime number are repeated

Step Size - refers to the minimum difference possible between two prime numbers, initially
we'll assume this to be 2 (as in the case of twins), however it is the minimum difference between
two primes that is possible, larger distances are still possible The minimum possible difference between two primes is 2, so I think you mean something else

.

Where's the Maths? I don't see it! In the eight or so months I've been a member of this forum, I've probably seen dozens of proofs of probably every major problem -- the Riemann hypothesis, Legendre's conjecture, P vs NP, you name it! We even had a particularly 'ingenious', as the user claimed, short proof of Fermat's last theorem. Suffice to say only one of them contained what even remotely resembled Maths!

First of all, there are an infinite number of primes. There is a fairly simple proof for this. There are actually several.

Second, it seems to me that you are making this problem over-complicated. Basically, what you said about primes in the first have can be restated without the use of sine waves. For all prime numbers n, a*n is not a prime number, where a is any integer not equal to 1.

Originally Posted by Defunkt

.

Sorry thats' meant to be the conditions required for a twin prime *
This just means that the pattern of the waves at the formation of the last twin prime will repeat indefinitely.
Again the only reason we don't have twin primes occurring at regular intervals is because of the newly introduced primes having multiples as well.

The idea of step size comes into play assuming scenario 1 where I assume there is no more twin primes possible, but otherwise yes the step size is 2.

Originally Posted by browni3141

First of all, there are an infinite number of primes. There is a fairly simple proof for this. There are actually several.

Second, it seems to me that you are making this problem over-complicated. Basically, what you said about primes in the first have can be restated without the use of sine waves. For all prime numbers n, a*n is not a prime number, where a is any integer not equal to 1.

Yea its just a bit easier for me to grasp the concept later on in the attempt when seeing them as waves, especially when talking about the repeating of conditions, which i guess can still can be explained in other terms.

Sorry, but it's been said many times: MHF is not the place to post 'proofs' of various famous mathematics problems (solved or unsolved). There are good reasons for this policy.

Such work should be submitted to an appropriate referee for review.

Thread closed.