Improved sieve for primes and prime twins?
Suppose we want to estimate the number of primes between $x$ and its square root, say for example between $10$ and $100$ with a sieve.
There are $90 $ numbers so we estimate :
$pi(10,100) = 90(1-1/2)(1-1/3)(1-1/5)(1-1/7) \
= 90 * 2 * 4 * 6 /2 / 3 / 5 / 7 = 90 * 24 / 105 = 20,57ldots$
This is very good. The true value is $21$.
However we know from The prime number theorem and from Mertens’ theorem that this is only a good estimate up to a multiplicative constant.
The problem is easily identified.
On one hand we have that divisions have remainders leading to increasing error terms.
On the other hand we have this :
$(1-1/2)(1-1/3)cdots(1-1/p_{n-1})(1-1/p_n)$ where $p_n$ is close to The square root of $x$ , leading to meaningless things ( terms ) like $x/(2*3*p_{n-1}*p_n) << 1$.
Truncating is thus the idea.
Let $omega(n)$ count the number of distinct prime factors of the integer $ n geq 2$. This $omega(n)$ is called the prime omega function.
Consider the truncated version of $(1-1/2)(1-1/3)ldots$ :
$$ pi(t,t^2 + t) = sum_{1<i<t} frac{(-1)^{omega(i)} t^2}{i} $$
Where $i$ are the squarefree integers.
How much better is this?
More precisely: is $sum_{1<i<t^2} frac{(-1)^{omega(i)} t^2}{i} $ asymptotic to $frac{t^2}{2 ln(t)} $ or are we still off by a constant factor ?
And if we are still off by a constant is it the same as Mertens’ or did we improve it - closer to $1$ - ?
How about a closed form then?
The analogue question for prime twins:
is $sum_{2<j<t^2} frac{(-2)^{omega(j)} t^2}{j} $ where $j $ are squarefree odd integers, asymptotic to $frac{t^2}{2 ln^2(t)}$ or are we still off by a constant factor?
And if we are still off by a constant is it the same as Mertens’ squared or did we improve it - closer to $1$ - ?
How about a closed form then?
I was unable to find this online or in libraries.
number-theory prime-numbers prime-twins sieve-theory truncation-error
add a comment |
Suppose we want to estimate the number of primes between $x$ and its square root, say for example between $10$ and $100$ with a sieve.
There are $90 $ numbers so we estimate :
$pi(10,100) = 90(1-1/2)(1-1/3)(1-1/5)(1-1/7) \
= 90 * 2 * 4 * 6 /2 / 3 / 5 / 7 = 90 * 24 / 105 = 20,57ldots$
This is very good. The true value is $21$.
However we know from The prime number theorem and from Mertens’ theorem that this is only a good estimate up to a multiplicative constant.
The problem is easily identified.
On one hand we have that divisions have remainders leading to increasing error terms.
On the other hand we have this :
$(1-1/2)(1-1/3)cdots(1-1/p_{n-1})(1-1/p_n)$ where $p_n$ is close to The square root of $x$ , leading to meaningless things ( terms ) like $x/(2*3*p_{n-1}*p_n) << 1$.
Truncating is thus the idea.
Let $omega(n)$ count the number of distinct prime factors of the integer $ n geq 2$. This $omega(n)$ is called the prime omega function.
Consider the truncated version of $(1-1/2)(1-1/3)ldots$ :
$$ pi(t,t^2 + t) = sum_{1<i<t} frac{(-1)^{omega(i)} t^2}{i} $$
Where $i$ are the squarefree integers.
How much better is this?
More precisely: is $sum_{1<i<t^2} frac{(-1)^{omega(i)} t^2}{i} $ asymptotic to $frac{t^2}{2 ln(t)} $ or are we still off by a constant factor ?
And if we are still off by a constant is it the same as Mertens’ or did we improve it - closer to $1$ - ?
How about a closed form then?
The analogue question for prime twins:
is $sum_{2<j<t^2} frac{(-2)^{omega(j)} t^2}{j} $ where $j $ are squarefree odd integers, asymptotic to $frac{t^2}{2 ln^2(t)}$ or are we still off by a constant factor?
And if we are still off by a constant is it the same as Mertens’ squared or did we improve it - closer to $1$ - ?
How about a closed form then?
I was unable to find this online or in libraries.
number-theory prime-numbers prime-twins sieve-theory truncation-error
can you please provide me some numerical calculation where you don't able to find its reason.
– Adarsh Kumar
Dec 23 '18 at 12:15
add a comment |
Suppose we want to estimate the number of primes between $x$ and its square root, say for example between $10$ and $100$ with a sieve.
There are $90 $ numbers so we estimate :
$pi(10,100) = 90(1-1/2)(1-1/3)(1-1/5)(1-1/7) \
= 90 * 2 * 4 * 6 /2 / 3 / 5 / 7 = 90 * 24 / 105 = 20,57ldots$
This is very good. The true value is $21$.
However we know from The prime number theorem and from Mertens’ theorem that this is only a good estimate up to a multiplicative constant.
The problem is easily identified.
On one hand we have that divisions have remainders leading to increasing error terms.
On the other hand we have this :
$(1-1/2)(1-1/3)cdots(1-1/p_{n-1})(1-1/p_n)$ where $p_n$ is close to The square root of $x$ , leading to meaningless things ( terms ) like $x/(2*3*p_{n-1}*p_n) << 1$.
Truncating is thus the idea.
Let $omega(n)$ count the number of distinct prime factors of the integer $ n geq 2$. This $omega(n)$ is called the prime omega function.
Consider the truncated version of $(1-1/2)(1-1/3)ldots$ :
$$ pi(t,t^2 + t) = sum_{1<i<t} frac{(-1)^{omega(i)} t^2}{i} $$
Where $i$ are the squarefree integers.
How much better is this?
More precisely: is $sum_{1<i<t^2} frac{(-1)^{omega(i)} t^2}{i} $ asymptotic to $frac{t^2}{2 ln(t)} $ or are we still off by a constant factor ?
And if we are still off by a constant is it the same as Mertens’ or did we improve it - closer to $1$ - ?
How about a closed form then?
The analogue question for prime twins:
is $sum_{2<j<t^2} frac{(-2)^{omega(j)} t^2}{j} $ where $j $ are squarefree odd integers, asymptotic to $frac{t^2}{2 ln^2(t)}$ or are we still off by a constant factor?
And if we are still off by a constant is it the same as Mertens’ squared or did we improve it - closer to $1$ - ?
How about a closed form then?
I was unable to find this online or in libraries.
number-theory prime-numbers prime-twins sieve-theory truncation-error
Suppose we want to estimate the number of primes between $x$ and its square root, say for example between $10$ and $100$ with a sieve.
There are $90 $ numbers so we estimate :
$pi(10,100) = 90(1-1/2)(1-1/3)(1-1/5)(1-1/7) \
= 90 * 2 * 4 * 6 /2 / 3 / 5 / 7 = 90 * 24 / 105 = 20,57ldots$
This is very good. The true value is $21$.
However we know from The prime number theorem and from Mertens’ theorem that this is only a good estimate up to a multiplicative constant.
The problem is easily identified.
On one hand we have that divisions have remainders leading to increasing error terms.
On the other hand we have this :
$(1-1/2)(1-1/3)cdots(1-1/p_{n-1})(1-1/p_n)$ where $p_n$ is close to The square root of $x$ , leading to meaningless things ( terms ) like $x/(2*3*p_{n-1}*p_n) << 1$.
Truncating is thus the idea.
Let $omega(n)$ count the number of distinct prime factors of the integer $ n geq 2$. This $omega(n)$ is called the prime omega function.
Consider the truncated version of $(1-1/2)(1-1/3)ldots$ :
$$ pi(t,t^2 + t) = sum_{1<i<t} frac{(-1)^{omega(i)} t^2}{i} $$
Where $i$ are the squarefree integers.
How much better is this?
More precisely: is $sum_{1<i<t^2} frac{(-1)^{omega(i)} t^2}{i} $ asymptotic to $frac{t^2}{2 ln(t)} $ or are we still off by a constant factor ?
And if we are still off by a constant is it the same as Mertens’ or did we improve it - closer to $1$ - ?
How about a closed form then?
The analogue question for prime twins:
is $sum_{2<j<t^2} frac{(-2)^{omega(j)} t^2}{j} $ where $j $ are squarefree odd integers, asymptotic to $frac{t^2}{2 ln^2(t)}$ or are we still off by a constant factor?
And if we are still off by a constant is it the same as Mertens’ squared or did we improve it - closer to $1$ - ?
How about a closed form then?
I was unable to find this online or in libraries.
number-theory prime-numbers prime-twins sieve-theory truncation-error
number-theory prime-numbers prime-twins sieve-theory truncation-error
edited Dec 21 '18 at 15:07
Henrik
6,01792030
6,01792030
asked Dec 21 '18 at 14:10
mick
5,08422064
5,08422064
can you please provide me some numerical calculation where you don't able to find its reason.
– Adarsh Kumar
Dec 23 '18 at 12:15
add a comment |
can you please provide me some numerical calculation where you don't able to find its reason.
– Adarsh Kumar
Dec 23 '18 at 12:15
can you please provide me some numerical calculation where you don't able to find its reason.
– Adarsh Kumar
Dec 23 '18 at 12:15
can you please provide me some numerical calculation where you don't able to find its reason.
– Adarsh Kumar
Dec 23 '18 at 12:15
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Let $p_1 = 2$, $p_2 =3$, $p_3=5$, $p_n= $the $n$th prime number
Define 2 as the smallest prime number.
Any larger primes numbers that exist in natural numbers is not a multiple of any smaller prime number.
To generate more prime numbers use a sieve to remove multiples of smaller prime numbers.
The sieve 1 removes multiples of $p_1$
The sieve 2 removes multiples of $p_1$, and $p_2$
The sieve 3 removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, and $p_3$
The sieve n removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, $p_3$, .... , and $p_n$
The non-prime numbers $>1$ in the current sieve can be generated by $xy$ where $x,y$ is an element generated in the previous sieve.
Sieve n is a set of arithmetic equations where the common difference is the primorial n and the initial value is a co-prime to
the common difference. Limit the number of elements generated by sieve n to the be $p_{n+1}$. All possible co-primes to generate the next sieve can be found in the current sieve.
The sieve 1
$$n<p_2 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*n + 1 = 1,3,5$$
The sieve 2
$$n<p_3 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$p_1*p_2*n + 1 = 1,7,13,19,25 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*n + 5 = 5,11,17,23,29 $$
The sieve 3
$$n<p_4$$
$$ n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 1 = 1,31,61,91,121,151,181 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 7 = 7,37,67,97,127,157,187 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41.71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13,43,73,103,133,163,193 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 = 17,47,77,107,137,167,197 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 19 = 19,49,79,109,139,169,199 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 23 = 23,53,83,113,143,173,203 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 29 = 29,59,89,119,149,179,209 $$
Twin primes are a pair of prime numbers which differ by 2. The first few pairs of twin primes are
$(3,5) ,(5,7), (11,13) , (17,19) , (29,31) , (41,43)$.
Are there infinitely many twin primes?
In sieve 3 there are two pair of arithmetic progressions where the difference between their initial values differ by 2.
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41,71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13, 43,73,103,133,163,193$$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 $$
$$ p_1*p_3*p_3*n + 19 $$
The numbers generated by a pair of arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 3 will become more pairs of
arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 4.
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+11 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+13 $$
and
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+41 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+43 $$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+71 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+73 $$
and
....
Only one element in each arithmetic progression in sieve $n$ generating $p_{n+1}$ elements has the factor of $p_{n+1}$.
Therefore each pair of arithmetic progression differing by $a$ will generate $p_{n+1} -2$ arithmetic progressions differing by $a$ in the next sieve.
All that is left is to prove there exist a pair of twin prime numbers in each sieve when each sieve generates a finite number of elements.
If $f$ is a factor of a number in an arithmetic progression generated by a sieve. Then for all sequential $f$ elements generated by the arithmetic progression there exist only one element with the factor $f$.
For example
$$p_1*p_2*n+1 = 1,7,13,19,25,31,37,43,49,55,... $$
$5$ is a factor of numbers $25, 55, 85, 115,...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $5$ sequential elements apart.
$7$ is a factor of numbers $7, 49, 91, ...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $7$ sequential elements apart.
In $5*7$ sequential elements there are exaclty $7$ elements with factors of $5$ and $5$ elements with factors of $7$.
In sieve m let input n
$$ n < p_1 * p_2 * p_3 * ... *p_m $$
Generating $p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ elements per arithmetic progression.
The largest number generated in the sieve is
$$ (p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m +1)(p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m -1)$$
Therefore all non-prime numbers generated per arithmetic progression must have a factor $f$ such that $f>=3$ and $f<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...p_m -1$.
Lets take the smallest factor possible $3$ in
$$p_1*n+1 =1,3,5,7,9,... $$
only need to count the number of odd numbers $>=3$ and $<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ in natural numbers to count non-prime numbers in arithmetic progression generated in sieve m when input n
$$ n < p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m $$
because of
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*q$ where $q>=3$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2)$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2+2)$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*q$ where $q>=3+2$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*(q+2)$
Therefore in two arithmetic progressions in the same sieve there exist $3$ elements generated by each arithmetic progression
sharing the same input $n$ where at most $2$ elements in sharing different n could be non-primes and the last possible $n$ input
must have prime numbers in both arithmetic progressions in the same sieve.
New contributor
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048527%2fimproved-sieve-for-primes-and-prime-twins%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
Let $p_1 = 2$, $p_2 =3$, $p_3=5$, $p_n= $the $n$th prime number
Define 2 as the smallest prime number.
Any larger primes numbers that exist in natural numbers is not a multiple of any smaller prime number.
To generate more prime numbers use a sieve to remove multiples of smaller prime numbers.
The sieve 1 removes multiples of $p_1$
The sieve 2 removes multiples of $p_1$, and $p_2$
The sieve 3 removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, and $p_3$
The sieve n removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, $p_3$, .... , and $p_n$
The non-prime numbers $>1$ in the current sieve can be generated by $xy$ where $x,y$ is an element generated in the previous sieve.
Sieve n is a set of arithmetic equations where the common difference is the primorial n and the initial value is a co-prime to
the common difference. Limit the number of elements generated by sieve n to the be $p_{n+1}$. All possible co-primes to generate the next sieve can be found in the current sieve.
The sieve 1
$$n<p_2 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*n + 1 = 1,3,5$$
The sieve 2
$$n<p_3 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$p_1*p_2*n + 1 = 1,7,13,19,25 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*n + 5 = 5,11,17,23,29 $$
The sieve 3
$$n<p_4$$
$$ n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 1 = 1,31,61,91,121,151,181 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 7 = 7,37,67,97,127,157,187 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41.71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13,43,73,103,133,163,193 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 = 17,47,77,107,137,167,197 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 19 = 19,49,79,109,139,169,199 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 23 = 23,53,83,113,143,173,203 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 29 = 29,59,89,119,149,179,209 $$
Twin primes are a pair of prime numbers which differ by 2. The first few pairs of twin primes are
$(3,5) ,(5,7), (11,13) , (17,19) , (29,31) , (41,43)$.
Are there infinitely many twin primes?
In sieve 3 there are two pair of arithmetic progressions where the difference between their initial values differ by 2.
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41,71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13, 43,73,103,133,163,193$$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 $$
$$ p_1*p_3*p_3*n + 19 $$
The numbers generated by a pair of arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 3 will become more pairs of
arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 4.
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+11 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+13 $$
and
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+41 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+43 $$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+71 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+73 $$
and
....
Only one element in each arithmetic progression in sieve $n$ generating $p_{n+1}$ elements has the factor of $p_{n+1}$.
Therefore each pair of arithmetic progression differing by $a$ will generate $p_{n+1} -2$ arithmetic progressions differing by $a$ in the next sieve.
All that is left is to prove there exist a pair of twin prime numbers in each sieve when each sieve generates a finite number of elements.
If $f$ is a factor of a number in an arithmetic progression generated by a sieve. Then for all sequential $f$ elements generated by the arithmetic progression there exist only one element with the factor $f$.
For example
$$p_1*p_2*n+1 = 1,7,13,19,25,31,37,43,49,55,... $$
$5$ is a factor of numbers $25, 55, 85, 115,...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $5$ sequential elements apart.
$7$ is a factor of numbers $7, 49, 91, ...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $7$ sequential elements apart.
In $5*7$ sequential elements there are exaclty $7$ elements with factors of $5$ and $5$ elements with factors of $7$.
In sieve m let input n
$$ n < p_1 * p_2 * p_3 * ... *p_m $$
Generating $p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ elements per arithmetic progression.
The largest number generated in the sieve is
$$ (p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m +1)(p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m -1)$$
Therefore all non-prime numbers generated per arithmetic progression must have a factor $f$ such that $f>=3$ and $f<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...p_m -1$.
Lets take the smallest factor possible $3$ in
$$p_1*n+1 =1,3,5,7,9,... $$
only need to count the number of odd numbers $>=3$ and $<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ in natural numbers to count non-prime numbers in arithmetic progression generated in sieve m when input n
$$ n < p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m $$
because of
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*q$ where $q>=3$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2)$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2+2)$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*q$ where $q>=3+2$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*(q+2)$
Therefore in two arithmetic progressions in the same sieve there exist $3$ elements generated by each arithmetic progression
sharing the same input $n$ where at most $2$ elements in sharing different n could be non-primes and the last possible $n$ input
must have prime numbers in both arithmetic progressions in the same sieve.
New contributor
add a comment |
Let $p_1 = 2$, $p_2 =3$, $p_3=5$, $p_n= $the $n$th prime number
Define 2 as the smallest prime number.
Any larger primes numbers that exist in natural numbers is not a multiple of any smaller prime number.
To generate more prime numbers use a sieve to remove multiples of smaller prime numbers.
The sieve 1 removes multiples of $p_1$
The sieve 2 removes multiples of $p_1$, and $p_2$
The sieve 3 removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, and $p_3$
The sieve n removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, $p_3$, .... , and $p_n$
The non-prime numbers $>1$ in the current sieve can be generated by $xy$ where $x,y$ is an element generated in the previous sieve.
Sieve n is a set of arithmetic equations where the common difference is the primorial n and the initial value is a co-prime to
the common difference. Limit the number of elements generated by sieve n to the be $p_{n+1}$. All possible co-primes to generate the next sieve can be found in the current sieve.
The sieve 1
$$n<p_2 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*n + 1 = 1,3,5$$
The sieve 2
$$n<p_3 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$p_1*p_2*n + 1 = 1,7,13,19,25 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*n + 5 = 5,11,17,23,29 $$
The sieve 3
$$n<p_4$$
$$ n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 1 = 1,31,61,91,121,151,181 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 7 = 7,37,67,97,127,157,187 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41.71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13,43,73,103,133,163,193 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 = 17,47,77,107,137,167,197 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 19 = 19,49,79,109,139,169,199 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 23 = 23,53,83,113,143,173,203 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 29 = 29,59,89,119,149,179,209 $$
Twin primes are a pair of prime numbers which differ by 2. The first few pairs of twin primes are
$(3,5) ,(5,7), (11,13) , (17,19) , (29,31) , (41,43)$.
Are there infinitely many twin primes?
In sieve 3 there are two pair of arithmetic progressions where the difference between their initial values differ by 2.
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41,71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13, 43,73,103,133,163,193$$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 $$
$$ p_1*p_3*p_3*n + 19 $$
The numbers generated by a pair of arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 3 will become more pairs of
arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 4.
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+11 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+13 $$
and
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+41 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+43 $$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+71 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+73 $$
and
....
Only one element in each arithmetic progression in sieve $n$ generating $p_{n+1}$ elements has the factor of $p_{n+1}$.
Therefore each pair of arithmetic progression differing by $a$ will generate $p_{n+1} -2$ arithmetic progressions differing by $a$ in the next sieve.
All that is left is to prove there exist a pair of twin prime numbers in each sieve when each sieve generates a finite number of elements.
If $f$ is a factor of a number in an arithmetic progression generated by a sieve. Then for all sequential $f$ elements generated by the arithmetic progression there exist only one element with the factor $f$.
For example
$$p_1*p_2*n+1 = 1,7,13,19,25,31,37,43,49,55,... $$
$5$ is a factor of numbers $25, 55, 85, 115,...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $5$ sequential elements apart.
$7$ is a factor of numbers $7, 49, 91, ...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $7$ sequential elements apart.
In $5*7$ sequential elements there are exaclty $7$ elements with factors of $5$ and $5$ elements with factors of $7$.
In sieve m let input n
$$ n < p_1 * p_2 * p_3 * ... *p_m $$
Generating $p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ elements per arithmetic progression.
The largest number generated in the sieve is
$$ (p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m +1)(p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m -1)$$
Therefore all non-prime numbers generated per arithmetic progression must have a factor $f$ such that $f>=3$ and $f<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...p_m -1$.
Lets take the smallest factor possible $3$ in
$$p_1*n+1 =1,3,5,7,9,... $$
only need to count the number of odd numbers $>=3$ and $<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ in natural numbers to count non-prime numbers in arithmetic progression generated in sieve m when input n
$$ n < p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m $$
because of
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*q$ where $q>=3$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2)$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2+2)$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*q$ where $q>=3+2$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*(q+2)$
Therefore in two arithmetic progressions in the same sieve there exist $3$ elements generated by each arithmetic progression
sharing the same input $n$ where at most $2$ elements in sharing different n could be non-primes and the last possible $n$ input
must have prime numbers in both arithmetic progressions in the same sieve.
New contributor
add a comment |
Let $p_1 = 2$, $p_2 =3$, $p_3=5$, $p_n= $the $n$th prime number
Define 2 as the smallest prime number.
Any larger primes numbers that exist in natural numbers is not a multiple of any smaller prime number.
To generate more prime numbers use a sieve to remove multiples of smaller prime numbers.
The sieve 1 removes multiples of $p_1$
The sieve 2 removes multiples of $p_1$, and $p_2$
The sieve 3 removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, and $p_3$
The sieve n removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, $p_3$, .... , and $p_n$
The non-prime numbers $>1$ in the current sieve can be generated by $xy$ where $x,y$ is an element generated in the previous sieve.
Sieve n is a set of arithmetic equations where the common difference is the primorial n and the initial value is a co-prime to
the common difference. Limit the number of elements generated by sieve n to the be $p_{n+1}$. All possible co-primes to generate the next sieve can be found in the current sieve.
The sieve 1
$$n<p_2 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*n + 1 = 1,3,5$$
The sieve 2
$$n<p_3 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$p_1*p_2*n + 1 = 1,7,13,19,25 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*n + 5 = 5,11,17,23,29 $$
The sieve 3
$$n<p_4$$
$$ n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 1 = 1,31,61,91,121,151,181 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 7 = 7,37,67,97,127,157,187 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41.71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13,43,73,103,133,163,193 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 = 17,47,77,107,137,167,197 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 19 = 19,49,79,109,139,169,199 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 23 = 23,53,83,113,143,173,203 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 29 = 29,59,89,119,149,179,209 $$
Twin primes are a pair of prime numbers which differ by 2. The first few pairs of twin primes are
$(3,5) ,(5,7), (11,13) , (17,19) , (29,31) , (41,43)$.
Are there infinitely many twin primes?
In sieve 3 there are two pair of arithmetic progressions where the difference between their initial values differ by 2.
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41,71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13, 43,73,103,133,163,193$$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 $$
$$ p_1*p_3*p_3*n + 19 $$
The numbers generated by a pair of arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 3 will become more pairs of
arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 4.
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+11 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+13 $$
and
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+41 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+43 $$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+71 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+73 $$
and
....
Only one element in each arithmetic progression in sieve $n$ generating $p_{n+1}$ elements has the factor of $p_{n+1}$.
Therefore each pair of arithmetic progression differing by $a$ will generate $p_{n+1} -2$ arithmetic progressions differing by $a$ in the next sieve.
All that is left is to prove there exist a pair of twin prime numbers in each sieve when each sieve generates a finite number of elements.
If $f$ is a factor of a number in an arithmetic progression generated by a sieve. Then for all sequential $f$ elements generated by the arithmetic progression there exist only one element with the factor $f$.
For example
$$p_1*p_2*n+1 = 1,7,13,19,25,31,37,43,49,55,... $$
$5$ is a factor of numbers $25, 55, 85, 115,...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $5$ sequential elements apart.
$7$ is a factor of numbers $7, 49, 91, ...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $7$ sequential elements apart.
In $5*7$ sequential elements there are exaclty $7$ elements with factors of $5$ and $5$ elements with factors of $7$.
In sieve m let input n
$$ n < p_1 * p_2 * p_3 * ... *p_m $$
Generating $p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ elements per arithmetic progression.
The largest number generated in the sieve is
$$ (p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m +1)(p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m -1)$$
Therefore all non-prime numbers generated per arithmetic progression must have a factor $f$ such that $f>=3$ and $f<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...p_m -1$.
Lets take the smallest factor possible $3$ in
$$p_1*n+1 =1,3,5,7,9,... $$
only need to count the number of odd numbers $>=3$ and $<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ in natural numbers to count non-prime numbers in arithmetic progression generated in sieve m when input n
$$ n < p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m $$
because of
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*q$ where $q>=3$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2)$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2+2)$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*q$ where $q>=3+2$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*(q+2)$
Therefore in two arithmetic progressions in the same sieve there exist $3$ elements generated by each arithmetic progression
sharing the same input $n$ where at most $2$ elements in sharing different n could be non-primes and the last possible $n$ input
must have prime numbers in both arithmetic progressions in the same sieve.
New contributor
Let $p_1 = 2$, $p_2 =3$, $p_3=5$, $p_n= $the $n$th prime number
Define 2 as the smallest prime number.
Any larger primes numbers that exist in natural numbers is not a multiple of any smaller prime number.
To generate more prime numbers use a sieve to remove multiples of smaller prime numbers.
The sieve 1 removes multiples of $p_1$
The sieve 2 removes multiples of $p_1$, and $p_2$
The sieve 3 removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, and $p_3$
The sieve n removes multiples of $p_1$, $p_2$, $p_3$, .... , and $p_n$
The non-prime numbers $>1$ in the current sieve can be generated by $xy$ where $x,y$ is an element generated in the previous sieve.
Sieve n is a set of arithmetic equations where the common difference is the primorial n and the initial value is a co-prime to
the common difference. Limit the number of elements generated by sieve n to the be $p_{n+1}$. All possible co-primes to generate the next sieve can be found in the current sieve.
The sieve 1
$$n<p_2 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*n + 1 = 1,3,5$$
The sieve 2
$$n<p_3 $$
$$n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$p_1*p_2*n + 1 = 1,7,13,19,25 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*n + 5 = 5,11,17,23,29 $$
The sieve 3
$$n<p_4$$
$$ n=0,1,2,3,... $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 1 = 1,31,61,91,121,151,181 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 7 = 7,37,67,97,127,157,187 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41.71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13,43,73,103,133,163,193 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 = 17,47,77,107,137,167,197 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 19 = 19,49,79,109,139,169,199 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 23 = 23,53,83,113,143,173,203 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 29 = 29,59,89,119,149,179,209 $$
Twin primes are a pair of prime numbers which differ by 2. The first few pairs of twin primes are
$(3,5) ,(5,7), (11,13) , (17,19) , (29,31) , (41,43)$.
Are there infinitely many twin primes?
In sieve 3 there are two pair of arithmetic progressions where the difference between their initial values differ by 2.
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 11 = 11,41,71,101,131,161,191 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 13 = 13, 43,73,103,133,163,193$$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*n + 17 $$
$$ p_1*p_3*p_3*n + 19 $$
The numbers generated by a pair of arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 3 will become more pairs of
arithmetic progressions which differ by 2 in sieve 4.
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+11 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+13 $$
and
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+41 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+43 $$
and
$$p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+71 $$
$$ p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4+73 $$
and
....
Only one element in each arithmetic progression in sieve $n$ generating $p_{n+1}$ elements has the factor of $p_{n+1}$.
Therefore each pair of arithmetic progression differing by $a$ will generate $p_{n+1} -2$ arithmetic progressions differing by $a$ in the next sieve.
All that is left is to prove there exist a pair of twin prime numbers in each sieve when each sieve generates a finite number of elements.
If $f$ is a factor of a number in an arithmetic progression generated by a sieve. Then for all sequential $f$ elements generated by the arithmetic progression there exist only one element with the factor $f$.
For example
$$p_1*p_2*n+1 = 1,7,13,19,25,31,37,43,49,55,... $$
$5$ is a factor of numbers $25, 55, 85, 115,...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $5$ sequential elements apart.
$7$ is a factor of numbers $7, 49, 91, ...$ and each of these numbers are exactly $7$ sequential elements apart.
In $5*7$ sequential elements there are exaclty $7$ elements with factors of $5$ and $5$ elements with factors of $7$.
In sieve m let input n
$$ n < p_1 * p_2 * p_3 * ... *p_m $$
Generating $p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ elements per arithmetic progression.
The largest number generated in the sieve is
$$ (p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m +1)(p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m -1)$$
Therefore all non-prime numbers generated per arithmetic progression must have a factor $f$ such that $f>=3$ and $f<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...p_m -1$.
Lets take the smallest factor possible $3$ in
$$p_1*n+1 =1,3,5,7,9,... $$
only need to count the number of odd numbers $>=3$ and $<=p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m$ in natural numbers to count non-prime numbers in arithmetic progression generated in sieve m when input n
$$ n < p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_m $$
because of
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*q$ where $q>=3$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2)$
The next non-prime number with the factor of $3$ will be $3*(q+2+2)$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*q$ where $q>=3+2$
The first non-prime number with the factor of $3+2$ without the factor of $3$ will be $(3+2)*(q+2)$
Therefore in two arithmetic progressions in the same sieve there exist $3$ elements generated by each arithmetic progression
sharing the same input $n$ where at most $2$ elements in sharing different n could be non-primes and the last possible $n$ input
must have prime numbers in both arithmetic progressions in the same sieve.
New contributor
edited yesterday
New contributor
answered Jan 3 at 5:25
Zhang
113
113
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048527%2fimproved-sieve-for-primes-and-prime-twins%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
can you please provide me some numerical calculation where you don't able to find its reason.
– Adarsh Kumar
Dec 23 '18 at 12:15