2014.04.28 I have solved the twin prime conjecture.

RD-BH

Human
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
818
Location
Formerly: Missouri, USA
attachment.php

attachment.php

PROOFSumwithpowersof2small.png

[TYPO] The last image should show sigma_(x=0)^(infinity) instead of sigma_(n=0)^(infinity)

For consideration:
Integers:
2*I are integers divisible by 2.
2*I +- 2^0 are integers indivisible by 2.
2*I +- 2^0 + K*(2) are integers indivisible by 2.
3*(2*I +- 2^0) are integers divisible by 3 and indivisible by 2.
3*(2*I +- 2^0) +- 2^J for J>0 are integers indivisible by 2 or 3.
3*(2*I +- 2^0) +- 2^J + K*(2*3) for J>0 are integers indivisible by 2 or 3.
...
5*3*(2*I +- 2^0) +- 2^J + K*(2*3*5) for J>0 are integers indivisible by 2, 3, or 5.
7*5*3*(2*I +- 2^0) +- 2^J + K*(2*3*5*7) for J>0 are integers indivisible by 2, 3, 5, or 7.
... P[n] = nth Prime
P[n]*...*7*5*3*(2*I +- 2^0) +- 2^J + K*(2*3*5*7*...*P[n]) for J>0 are integers indivisible by Primes P[1] to P[n].

If f(x) = product_(n=1)^(x){P[n]} then:
... (f(x)/2)*(2*I+-2^0) +- 2^J + K*f(x) are integers indivisible by P[1] to P[x]
... there remain infinite indivisible integers as x approaches infinity
f'(x) = (f(x)/2)*(2*I+-2^0) + K*f(x)
Therefore there are infinite indivisible twin pairs of integers such that:
... f'(x) - 4, f'(x) - 2, f'(x) + 2, and f'(x) + 4 are indivisible by x primes as x approaches infinity.

Assume finite twin primes:
1) there must be a finite number of indivisible twin pairs
2) there must exist an x (ie P[n]) such that any integer greater than x (ie P[n] + 2) is divisible by at least two primes

1) is false, infinite indivisible twin pairs
2) is false, infinite indivisible twin pairs and infinite primes
... consider P[y] such that P[x] < P[y] < f"(x) = product_(n=1)^(x){P[n]}
... ... P[y] = (2*I +- 2^0)*f"(x)/2 + K*f"(x) +- 2^J for J>0
... ... example: P[3] < P[10] < f"(3) {ie 5 < 29 < 30 }
... ... 29 = (2*0+2^0)*2*3*5/2 + (1)*2*3*5 - 2^4 {ie 29 = (1)*15 + (1)*30 - 16 }

Indivisible twin pairs:
... ITP(x) = product_(n=1)^(x){P[n]-2} as x approaches infinity
Form of those pairs:
... f'(x) - 4, f'(x) - 2, f'(x) + 2, and f'(x) + 4 as x approaches infinity

1) a Prime is an Integer > 1 and only divisible by 1 and itself
2) there are infinite Primes indivisible by 2
Therefore:
3) there are infinite Twin Primes
... Quantity: ITP(x) = product_(n=1)^(x){P[n]-2} as x approaches infinity
... Form: f'(x) +- 2^J for J=1 and 2, as x approaches infinity

You have three points on a wave:
Zero: 0 ... evenly divisible by every Prime
Midpoint: 2*3*5*7*...*P[x]/2 divisible by every odd Prime
Endpoint: 2*3*5*7*...*P[x] evenly divisible by x Primes
It follows:
midpoint - 4 is indivisible by x Primes
midpoint - 2 is indivisible by x Primes
midpoint + 2 is indivisible by x Primes
midpoint + 4 is indivisible by x Primes
These points have a period = Endpoint, defining infinite series:
... midpoint - 4 + K*Endpoint
... midpoint - 2 + K*Endpoint
... midpoint +2 + K*Endpoint
... midpoint +4 + K*Endpoint
As x (number of Primes) approaches infinity, these series remain infinite.
Zero +- 1 are indivisible by all Primes (Primes are Integers > 1)
Endpoint +- 1 + K*Endpoint defines an infinite series of integers indivisible by x Primes.

P[n] = nth Prime
1) There are infinite Primes, therefore no set of Primes can divide an infinite series.
... P[n]/P[n+1] are not integers
2) There are infinite Primes, therefore no set of Primes can divide two infinite series.
... for P[n+1]-P[n]>2, P[n]/P[n+1] and (P[n]+2)/P[n+1] are not integers
3) There are infinite Primes, therefore no set of Primes can divide infinite number of infinite series of indivisible twin pairs.
... For n = 1 to x, as x approaches infinity (midpoint +-3 +-1 + K*Endpoint)/P[n] are not integers
4) Therefore, there must be infinite Twin Prime pairs.

Integer I, Prime P:
... remainder of I/P has P possible results ranging from 0 to (P-1)
... I/2 has remainders of 0,1
... I/3 has remainders of 0,1,2
... I/5 has remainders of 0,1,2,3,4
... I/7 has remainders of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6
... etc ...
... I/P has remainders of 0,1,...,(P-1)

Code:
Integers (0..29): 012345678901234567890123456789
Remainders (2):   010101010101010101010101010101
Remainders (3):   012012012012012012012012012012
Remainders (5):   012340123401234012340123401234
Remainders (7):   012345601234560123456012345601
... etc ...

Zeroes appear where an integer is divisible by a Prime.
Vertically (first 4 primes):
Code:
2357...etc...
========
0000...etc...
1111...etc...
 222...etc...
  33...etc...
  44...etc...
   5...etc...
   6...etc...

Combinations of remainders form unique Integers.
Total combinations formed by set of x primes:
... rCombos(x) = product_(n=1)^(x){P[n]} for P[n] = nth Prime

Strike the zeroes (ie combos divisible by set of x primes).
Code:
2357...etc...
========
1111...etc...
 222...etc...
  33...etc...
  44...etc...
   5...etc...
   6...etc...

Total combinations indivisible by set of x primes:
... rIndivisibleCombos(x) = product_(n=1)^(x){P[n]-1} for P[n] = nth Prime

How many indivisible twin pairs remain?
... I/2 leaves (1) infinite series, remainders: (1,1)
... I/3 leaves (1) infinite series, remainders: (2,1)
... I/5 leaves (3) infinite series, remainders: (1,3),(2,4),(4,1)
... I/7 leaves (5) infinite series, remainders: (1,3),(2,4),(3,5),(4,6),(6,1)
...etc...
... I/P leaves (P-2) infinite series for P > 2, eliminated remainders: (0,2),((P-2),0)

Indivisible Twin Pair Combos:
... ITPCombos(x) = product_(n=1)^(x){P[n]-2} for P[n] = nth Prime

Spoiler :
a = indivisible twin pairs within period
b = period of cycle
c = total cycles
a/b*c = total indivisible twin pairs
... a is infinite, b is infinite, and c is infinite
... therefore a/b*c is infinite
a = product_(n=1)^(x){P[n]-2}
b = product_(n=1)^(x){P[n]}
c > product_(n=1)^(P[x]){I[n]} for I[n] = nth Integer
... c defined by largest factor (P[n])
... because P[n] > I[n] could mislead that c/b < 1
f(x) = a/b*c
a < b < c < infinity, therefore c/b > 1, and f(x) = infinity as x approaches infinity.


Conclusion:
... There are infinite Primes and therefore infinite Twin Prime Pairs.

end For Consideration.
 

Attachments

Multiplying all integers? Wouldn't that be infinity exclamation point? um, 8! ?

Not necessarily integers, and usually not an infinite factorial (which would diverge).

A sequence of numbers would be something like 1,2,3,4,5,..., n
or like 1,1/2,1/4,1/8,1/16,..., 1/2^n


A product of the second sequence would be: 1*1/2*1/4*1/8*1/16*...* (1/2^n)
It's not exactly clear to me what sequence Pn or Px denotes in the equation in the OP.
 
Can't be a correct solution cause there is no Phi in it :smug:

Ok, more serious comment:

Anyone care to present the meaning of that series of symbols? (cause i don't know all of the notation, sorry..).

Reading about the twin prime conjecture, it seems any argument would use the following:

-"Brun's theorem states that the sum of the reciprocals of the twin primes (pairs of prime numbers which differ by 2) converges to a finite value known as Brun's constant, usually denoted by B2 (sequence A065421 in OEIS). Brun's theorem was proven by Viggo Brun in 1919."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brun's_constant

200px-Bruns-constant.svg.png


Which in layman terms means that according to Brun (and i suppose shown to be correct) for any twin primes (ie two consecutive prime numbers which also happen to only have a difference of 2 between them, eg 11 and 13) the numbers that when multiplied with them would give 1 (for 11 and 13 those are 1/11 and 1/13) when added would create for all twin primes a math sequence that tends to end at a specific number, ie has a limit to an actual number.

*

So if people here care, it would be cool is someone gave an account of the math notation in the OP, just so that there can be some discussion on twin primes anyway :)
 
I'm still not sure what is being multiplied, then? What significance does the pi symbol have there?
Using a capital pi for multiplication is analogous to using a capital sigma for summation.

P1 * P2 * P3 * P4 * ...
Anyone care to present the meaning of that series of symbols? (cause i don't know all of the notation, sorry..).
It was RD-BH's post.
 
What?

I asked if anyone could write a sentence describing in full, in common language, the syllogism supposedly in the symbol-ridden image he posted. I am not very much in the mood for dling a file to my computer just cause someone claimed he made a breakthrough on the twin prime conjecture. Y U NO more logical? :(
 
The file in the OP is just the attachment of the Image you see. It's not going to give you any more info.
I find it... interesting that someone claims to have solved a mathematical problem yet offers no proof. :mischief:
 
What?

I asked if anyone could write a sentence describing in full, in common language, the syllogism supposedly in the symbol-ridden image he posted. I am not very much in the mood for dling a file to my computer just cause someone claimed he made a breakthrough on the twin prime conjecture. Y U NO more logical? :(
The file in the OP is the bitmap being shown in the post. That the picture does not explicitly state what some of the variables represent is an issue for the person posting it to solve, unless someone else in OTF is sufficiently familiar with the terms in the equation as presented. That 'anyone' should be RD-BH is what I'm saying.
 
The file in the OP is just the attachment of the Image you see. It's not going to give you any more info.
I find it... interesting that someone claims to have solved a mathematical problem yet offers no proof. :mischief:

Which of the three is more probably true?

1) (boring option) It is a trolling post

2) (honest but wrong option) The image does not present something related to a true solution.

3) (honest option, but this time you die too...) The OP made a huge math breakthrough, and fearing for his life has shared it all around the web, and NSA will hunt down those who got to see it before everything vanishes and the proof is attributed to the Democratic Party :)

*

I think that 2 options of those seem likelier.
 
The file in the OP is the bitmap being shown in the post. That the picture does not explicitly state what some of the variables represent is an issue for the person posting it to solve, unless someone else in OTF is sufficiently familiar with the terms in the equation as presented. That 'anyone' should be RD-BH is what I'm saying.

The only thing I can think of is P&#8345; denotes the nth prime number. But &#928;(P&#8345;) is divergent.
 
Important elements:
... numerator in power of i is indivisible by any Prime
... numerator is odd (2I+-1)
... P=2 is eliminated by divide by 2 (r+-1)
... P=3 is eliminated by +-1 (r+-1)
... P>=5 are eliminated by (r+-2,+-4)

This is in form of (1/2 +iy).
F(I)=sigma(x)-1
F(I)=0, therefore numerator is prime (has a single divisor)
 
The file in the OP is just the attachment of the Image you see. It's not going to give you any more info.
I find it... interesting that someone claims to have solved a mathematical problem yet offers no proof. :mischief:

However is not the equation itself the solution?
 
Ok, is the twin prime conjecture just finding out how many prime numbers exist that are only separated by 2 ie 1,3 5,7 11,13?

Perhaps at least that could be cleared up?
 
Back
Top Bottom