Can someone explain to me where this proof goes wrong? (Twin Prime Conjecture)Can the twin prime conjecture be solved in this way?What is wrong with this proposed proof of the twin prime conjecture?How to pigeonhole the primes between $p_n$ and $p_n+1^2$ for twin prime conjecture?Possible method to prove infinite twin prime conjectureTwin prime conjecture proof errorWhy can the sieve of eratosthenes not be used to confirm the twin primes conjecture?Can't understand the logical structure of Euclid's infinitely many primes proof in Rosen's book.A twin prime theorem, and a reformulation of the twin prime conjectureTwin prime conjecture and gaps between primesIterated Twin Prime conjecture

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

Employee lack of ownership

Is it possible to upcast ritual spells?

Who is flying the vertibirds?

Time travel from stationary position?

Dice rolling probability game

Existence of subset with given Hausdorff dimension

Co-worker team leader wants to inject his friend's awful software into our development. What should I say to our common boss?

Awsome yet unlucky path traversal

Hacking a Safe Lock after 3 tries

Most cost effective thermostat setting: consistent temperature vs. lowest temperature possible

How do I hide Chekhov's Gun?

Define, (actually define) the "stability" and "energy" of a compound

Official degrees of earth’s rotation per day

What did Alexander Pope mean by "Expletives their feeble Aid do join"?

If curse and magic is two sides of the same coin, why the former is forbidden?

Does someone need to be connected to my network to sniff HTTP requests?

Is it true that good novels will automatically sell themselves on Amazon (and so on) and there is no need for one to waste time promoting?

Should we release the security issues we found in our product as CVE or we can just update those on weekly release notes?

Can a druid choose the size of its wild shape beast?

What do Xenomorphs eat in the Alien series?

A sequence that has integer values for prime indexes only:

Do I need life insurance if I can cover my own funeral costs?

Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deaths



Can someone explain to me where this proof goes wrong? (Twin Prime Conjecture)


Can the twin prime conjecture be solved in this way?What is wrong with this proposed proof of the twin prime conjecture?How to pigeonhole the primes between $p_n$ and $p_n+1^2$ for twin prime conjecture?Possible method to prove infinite twin prime conjectureTwin prime conjecture proof errorWhy can the sieve of eratosthenes not be used to confirm the twin primes conjecture?Can't understand the logical structure of Euclid's infinitely many primes proof in Rosen's book.A twin prime theorem, and a reformulation of the twin prime conjectureTwin prime conjecture and gaps between primesIterated Twin Prime conjecture













1












$begingroup$


Euclid's theorem states:




Consider any finite list of prime numbers $p_1, p_2, ..., p_n$. It will be shown that at least one additional prime number not in this list exists. Let $P$ be the product of all the prime numbers in the list: $P = p_1p_2...p_n$. Let $q = P + 1$. Then $q$ is either prime or not.



If $q$ is prime, then there is at least one more prime that is not in the list. If $q$ is not prime, then some prime factor $p$ divides $q$. If this factor $p$ were in our list, then it would divide $P$ (since $P$ is the product of every number in the list); but $p$ divides $P + 1 = q$. If $p$ divides $P$ and $q$, then $p$ would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is $(P + 1) − P$ or just $1$. Since no prime number divides $1$, $p$ cannot be on the list. This means that at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the list. This proves that for every finite list of prime numbers there is a prime number not in the list, and therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.





My question:



Does this theorem also hold if you let $q = P - 1$?



Wouldn't $P-1$ also be necessarily a new prime number? And if so, it and $P+1$ would be a set of twin primes.




So the proof would be:



Assume there are a finite number of twin primes such that $p_n+1 - p_n = 2$.



Then, from the final set of twin primes, choose the larger of these two primes $p_n+1$. Calculate $S=p_1p_2...p_n+1$. So you now have a product of all primes up to $p_n+1$. Call this $S$. $S + 1$ is a prime number and so is $S - 1$. This is a new set of twin primes not in our original list, thus there cannot be a finite list of twin primes.



Of course, if $S - 1$ is not prime, then this falls apart.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
    $endgroup$
    – Noe Blassel
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago















1












$begingroup$


Euclid's theorem states:




Consider any finite list of prime numbers $p_1, p_2, ..., p_n$. It will be shown that at least one additional prime number not in this list exists. Let $P$ be the product of all the prime numbers in the list: $P = p_1p_2...p_n$. Let $q = P + 1$. Then $q$ is either prime or not.



If $q$ is prime, then there is at least one more prime that is not in the list. If $q$ is not prime, then some prime factor $p$ divides $q$. If this factor $p$ were in our list, then it would divide $P$ (since $P$ is the product of every number in the list); but $p$ divides $P + 1 = q$. If $p$ divides $P$ and $q$, then $p$ would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is $(P + 1) − P$ or just $1$. Since no prime number divides $1$, $p$ cannot be on the list. This means that at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the list. This proves that for every finite list of prime numbers there is a prime number not in the list, and therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.





My question:



Does this theorem also hold if you let $q = P - 1$?



Wouldn't $P-1$ also be necessarily a new prime number? And if so, it and $P+1$ would be a set of twin primes.




So the proof would be:



Assume there are a finite number of twin primes such that $p_n+1 - p_n = 2$.



Then, from the final set of twin primes, choose the larger of these two primes $p_n+1$. Calculate $S=p_1p_2...p_n+1$. So you now have a product of all primes up to $p_n+1$. Call this $S$. $S + 1$ is a prime number and so is $S - 1$. This is a new set of twin primes not in our original list, thus there cannot be a finite list of twin primes.



Of course, if $S - 1$ is not prime, then this falls apart.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
    $endgroup$
    – Noe Blassel
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago













1












1








1


1



$begingroup$


Euclid's theorem states:




Consider any finite list of prime numbers $p_1, p_2, ..., p_n$. It will be shown that at least one additional prime number not in this list exists. Let $P$ be the product of all the prime numbers in the list: $P = p_1p_2...p_n$. Let $q = P + 1$. Then $q$ is either prime or not.



If $q$ is prime, then there is at least one more prime that is not in the list. If $q$ is not prime, then some prime factor $p$ divides $q$. If this factor $p$ were in our list, then it would divide $P$ (since $P$ is the product of every number in the list); but $p$ divides $P + 1 = q$. If $p$ divides $P$ and $q$, then $p$ would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is $(P + 1) − P$ or just $1$. Since no prime number divides $1$, $p$ cannot be on the list. This means that at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the list. This proves that for every finite list of prime numbers there is a prime number not in the list, and therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.





My question:



Does this theorem also hold if you let $q = P - 1$?



Wouldn't $P-1$ also be necessarily a new prime number? And if so, it and $P+1$ would be a set of twin primes.




So the proof would be:



Assume there are a finite number of twin primes such that $p_n+1 - p_n = 2$.



Then, from the final set of twin primes, choose the larger of these two primes $p_n+1$. Calculate $S=p_1p_2...p_n+1$. So you now have a product of all primes up to $p_n+1$. Call this $S$. $S + 1$ is a prime number and so is $S - 1$. This is a new set of twin primes not in our original list, thus there cannot be a finite list of twin primes.



Of course, if $S - 1$ is not prime, then this falls apart.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Euclid's theorem states:




Consider any finite list of prime numbers $p_1, p_2, ..., p_n$. It will be shown that at least one additional prime number not in this list exists. Let $P$ be the product of all the prime numbers in the list: $P = p_1p_2...p_n$. Let $q = P + 1$. Then $q$ is either prime or not.



If $q$ is prime, then there is at least one more prime that is not in the list. If $q$ is not prime, then some prime factor $p$ divides $q$. If this factor $p$ were in our list, then it would divide $P$ (since $P$ is the product of every number in the list); but $p$ divides $P + 1 = q$. If $p$ divides $P$ and $q$, then $p$ would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is $(P + 1) − P$ or just $1$. Since no prime number divides $1$, $p$ cannot be on the list. This means that at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the list. This proves that for every finite list of prime numbers there is a prime number not in the list, and therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.





My question:



Does this theorem also hold if you let $q = P - 1$?



Wouldn't $P-1$ also be necessarily a new prime number? And if so, it and $P+1$ would be a set of twin primes.




So the proof would be:



Assume there are a finite number of twin primes such that $p_n+1 - p_n = 2$.



Then, from the final set of twin primes, choose the larger of these two primes $p_n+1$. Calculate $S=p_1p_2...p_n+1$. So you now have a product of all primes up to $p_n+1$. Call this $S$. $S + 1$ is a prime number and so is $S - 1$. This is a new set of twin primes not in our original list, thus there cannot be a finite list of twin primes.



Of course, if $S - 1$ is not prime, then this falls apart.







proof-verification prime-numbers prime-twins






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 5 mins ago









YuiTo Cheng

2,0452637




2,0452637






New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 3 hours ago









Jeffrey ScottJeffrey Scott

61




61




New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
    $endgroup$
    – Noe Blassel
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago












  • 6




    $begingroup$
    There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
    $endgroup$
    – Noe Blassel
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago







6




6




$begingroup$
There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
$endgroup$
– Noe Blassel
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
$endgroup$
– Noe Blassel
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    2 hours ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149966%2fcan-someone-explain-to-me-where-this-proof-goes-wrong-twin-prime-conjecture%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5












$begingroup$

Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    2 hours ago















5












$begingroup$

Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    2 hours ago













5












5








5





$begingroup$

Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









Robert ShoreRobert Shore

2,960218




2,960218







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    2 hours ago












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    2 hours ago







2




2




$begingroup$
Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeffrey Scott
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeffrey Scott
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
2 hours ago










Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149966%2fcan-someone-explain-to-me-where-this-proof-goes-wrong-twin-prime-conjecture%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Möglingen Índice Localización Historia Demografía Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.129166666666748°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667Sitio web oficial Mapa de Möglingen«Gemeinden in Deutschland nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Postleitzahl am 30.09.2016»Möglingen

Virtualbox - Configuration error: Querying “UUID” failed (VERR_CFGM_VALUE_NOT_FOUND)“VERR_SUPLIB_WORLD_WRITABLE” error when trying to installing OS in virtualboxVirtual Box Kernel errorFailed to open a seesion for the virtual machineFailed to open a session for the virtual machineUbuntu 14.04 LTS Virtualbox errorcan't use VM VirtualBoxusing virtualboxI can't run Linux-64 Bit on VirtualBoxUnable to insert the virtual optical disk (VBoxguestaddition) in virtual machine for ubuntu server in win 10VirtuaBox in Ubuntu 18.04 Issues with Win10.ISO Installation

Torre de la Isleta Índice Véase también Referencias Bibliografía Enlaces externos Menú de navegación38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.3838888938°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.38388889Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta o Torre Saleta. Base de datos de bienes inmuebles. Patrimonio Cultural. Secretaría de Estado de CulturaFicha BIC Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta. Dirección General de Patrimonio Cultural. Generalitat ValencianaLugares de interés. Ayuntamiento del CampelloTorre de la Isleta en CastillosNet.org