Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [PrimeNumbers] New Type of Prime Arithmetic Progression?

Expand Messages
  • w_sindelar@juno.com
    Thank you once again, Jens. I value your responses. I would like to add a few comments in reply. ... I m lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach. Here s
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 26, 2007
      Thank you once again, Jens. I value your responses. I would like to add a
      few comments in reply.

      > Bill Sindelar wrote:
      > > For any integer k=3 or greater, and any integer n=0 or greater,
      > one can
      > > find an arithmetic progression of prime numbers (PAP) of length k,
      > such
      > > that the number n of consecutive primes between adjacent terms of
      > the PAP
      > > is constant.

      Jens K Andersen wrote:
      > This follows from the widely believed conjecture that all
      > admissible prime constellations have infinitely many occurrences.
      > If the conjecture is true then one can first choose specific
      > admissible
      > positions for all primes, and then choose additional prime
      > positions
      > outside the whole PAP interval in a way which fixes chosen primes
      > modulo the interval start such that every other number in the
      > interval
      > gets a known prime factor.

      I'm lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach. Here's how I came to
      making the above statement. A few weeks ago I realized that, in all the
      literature I read on PAP's, including Green and Tao, no reference to the
      numbers enclosed between adjacent primes of the PAP was made. The sole
      requirement was a constant difference between adjacent primes. I decided
      to add the requirement that the number of consecutive primes between
      adjacent primes also be constant, and see if I could find any PAPs of
      this type.

      The approach I used required making the following assumption, which is
      equivalent to the above statement; Let S(p, n) represent an infinite
      subset of the universal set of all consecutive odd primes, where p is the
      first prime of the subset, and n (including 0) represents the number of
      consecutive primes from the universal set that have been omitted between
      adjacent primes of the subset.Then any S(p, n) contains a set of any
      number k of primes in arithmetic progression. The program I wrote is
      based on this.

      Sindelar wrote:
      > Consecutive primes in arithmetic progression can be considered as
      > a
      > (PAP-k, n) since there are n=0 primes between adjacent terms. I
      > would
      > interpret Green and Tao as covering this type.

      Andersen wrote:
      > No. Green and Tao does not say that the primes in AP are
      > consecutive or have a constant number of primes between them.

      As I said in my first post, I do not have the ability to understand the
      Green-Tao proof to see if specific exceptions are included. Tao in a
      presentation slide showed the theorem worded as "The primes contain
      arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions". In another slide he says "In
      particular, for any given k, the primes contain infinitely many
      arithmetic progressions of length k". To me, this is a very broad claim
      covering any type of (PAP-k, n). Jens can you explain your answer a bit
      more?

      Bill Sindelar

      Bill Sindelar
    • Jens Kruse Andersen
      ... You asked for comments on your statement (which is an unproven guess). I briefly showed that it would follow from a well-known and trusted conjecture,
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 26, 2007
        Bill Sindelar wrote:
        >> Bill Sindelar wrote:
        >>> For any integer k=3 or greater, and any integer n=0 or greater,
        >>> one can find an arithmetic progression of prime numbers (PAP)
        >>> of length k, such that the number n of consecutive primes
        >>> between adjacent terms of the PAP is constant.
        >
        > Jens K Andersen wrote:
        >> This follows from the widely believed conjecture that all
        >> admissible prime constellations have infinitely many occurrences.
        >> If the conjecture is true then one can first choose specific
        >> admissible positions for all primes, and then choose additional
        >> prime positions outside the whole PAP interval in a way which
        >> fixes chosen primes modulo the interval start such that every
        >> other number in the interval gets a known prime factor.
        >
        > I'm lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach.

        You asked for comments on your statement (which is an unproven
        guess). I briefly showed that it would follow from a well-known
        and trusted conjecture, sometimes called the prime k-tuple conjecture
        (that name is sometimes restricted to special cases). Of course it's
        less "convoluted" to not relate your guess to anything else like
        previosly studied things. If you want something unconvoluted
        (but not very useful by itself) then here it is: I guess your guess is
        right.

        > A few weeks ago I realized that, in all the
        > literature I read on PAP's, including Green and Tao, no reference to the
        > numbers enclosed between adjacent primes of the PAP was made. The sole
        > requirement was a constant difference between adjacent primes. I decided
        > to add the requirement that the number of consecutive primes between
        > adjacent primes also be constant

        There is plenty of literature about consecutive primes in arithmetic
        progression which is what you call (PAP-k, 0).
        I have not seen mention of your (PAP-k, n>0) before.

        > Sindelar wrote:
        >>> Consecutive primes in arithmetic progression can be considered as
        >>> a (PAP-k, n) since there are n=0 primes between adjacent terms. I
        >>> would interpret Green and Tao as covering this type.
        >
        > Andersen wrote:
        >> No. Green and Tao does not say that the primes in AP are
        >> consecutive or have a constant number of primes between them.
        >
        > As I said in my first post, I do not have the ability to understand the
        > Green-Tao proof to see if specific exceptions are included. Tao in a
        > presentation slide showed the theorem worded as "The primes contain
        > arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions". In another slide he says "In
        > particular, for any given k, the primes contain infinitely many
        > arithmetic progressions of length k". To me, this is a very broad claim
        > covering any type of (PAP-k, n). Jens can you explain your answer a bit
        > more?

        Just to be clear: My "No" was only to your second sentence:
        "I would interpret Green and Tao as covering this type."

        A PAP-k (often just called AP-k) is k primes in arithmetic progression.
        A PAP-k has no condition on how many other primes are between them.

        Tao's two formulations are trivially equivalent.
        1) "The primes contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions".

        By definition of "arbitrarily long" this means that:
        For any given natural number n, there is a PAP-k with k>=n.

        2) "In particular, for any given k, the primes contain infinitely many
        arithmetic progressions of length k".

        By definition of "infinitely many" this means that:
        For any given m and k, there are more than m PAP-k.

        2) obviously implies 1) by setting m=1.

        1) implies 2). Proof: If 1) is true then for any m and k, there exists
        a PAP-(m+k), and that contains m+1 overlapping PAP-k.


        You defined (PAP-k, n) as a PAP-k with n primes between each of
        the k-1 pairs of successive primes in the AP. Tao and Green don't
        mention this concept of equal prime counts and their theorem says
        nothing about your (PAP-k, n) for n=0 or any other n value.
        I don't know what else you want me to explain.
        All I can say is that the theorem simply doesn't say it.

        --
        Jens Kruse Andersen
      • elevensmooth
        ... I ll try. Are you aware of the concept of admissible constellations? For example, twin primes, x and x+2, are believed to occur infinitely often. A
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 26, 2007
          --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, w_sindelar@... wrote:

          > Jens can you explain your answer a bit more?

          I'll try.

          Are you aware of the concept of "admissible constellations?" For
          example, twin primes, x and x+2, are believed to occur infinitely
          often. A triplet of the form x, x+2, x+4 is not admissible because
          one of these numbers always divisible by 3. Hence (3, 5, 7) is the
          only example - a finite number. However x, x+2, x+6 is admissible and
          is believed to be prime infinitely often.

          Jens point is that you can construct an admissible constellation that
          has all kn-1 primes in fixed locations so the the arithmetic
          progression and primes between are honored. This is more restrictive
          than your rules require, but would be an example as long as none of
          the the other values within the constellation's range are also prime.
          Jen's further point is that you could further restrict the
          constellation so that the intermediate values were divisible by
          selected primes, and hence composite. Again more restrictive than you
          rules, but it would qualify as an example. Finally, from the
          constellation conjecture there would be an infinite number of these
          constellation, each and every one an example.

          For example, x, x+2, x+6, x+8, x+12 is an example of admissible
          constellation that has 3 primes in arithmetic progression with(al
          least) one prime between them. In this case there is exactly one
          prime because x+4 and x+10 must be divisible by 3. In general, we
          would need to jiggle the start point as x=ay+b for selected fixed
          values if a and b to ensure the omitted points are composite.

          Finally, every example that you find can could be reverse-engineered
          to such an admissible constellation, so this search would be a subset
          of a search for examples of admissible constellations.

          William Lipp
          Poohbah of OddPerfect.org
        • w_sindelar@juno.com
          ... Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing I m lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach. Looking back at this, I can see that it can be taken as
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 29, 2007
            Sindelar wrote:
            > > I'm lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach.

            Andersen wrote:
            > You asked for comments on your statement (which is an unproven
            > guess). I briefly showed that it would follow from a well-known
            > and trusted conjecture, sometimes called the prime k-tuple
            > conjecture
            > (that name is sometimes restricted to special cases). Of course
            > it's
            > less "convoluted" to not relate your guess to anything else like
            > previously studied things. If you want something unconvoluted
            > (but not very useful by itself) then here it is: I guess your guess
            > is
            > right.

            Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing "I'm lost here. Seems
            like a convoluted approach." Looking back at this, I can see that it can
            be taken as arrogant criticism. Gad, that is not what I meant it to be. I
            should have written "I am unable to follow your explanation. It seems
            complicated to me because I know nothing about admissible prime
            constellations, but I accept your opinion". I regret my choice of words
            and hope you accept my sincere apology.

            Sindelar wrote in regard to Green and Tao:
            >>>To me, this is a very broad claim covering any type of (PAP-k, n).
            Jens can you explain your answer a bit more?

            Andersen wrote:
            > Just to be clear: My "No" was only to your second sentence:
            > "I would interpret Green and Tao as covering this type. (meaning
            (PAP-k, n=0))"
            >
            > You defined (PAP-k, n) as a PAP-k with n primes between each of
            > the k-1 pairs of successive primes in the AP. Tao and Green don't
            > mention this concept of equal prime counts and their theorem says
            > nothing about your (PAP-k, n) for n=0 or any other n value.
            > I don't know what else you want me to explain.
            > All I can say is that the theorem simply doesn't say it.

            Jens thank you. Nothing more to explain. You made it clear that the Green
            and Tao theorem does not apply to type (PAP-k, n=0 or greater). And thank
            you for an example of a (PAP-8, 5). Don't know how you calculated that so
            quickly. I was beginning to think there might be a limit on k.

            Bill Sindelar

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • w_sindelar@juno.com
            ... Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing I m lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach. Looking back at this, I can see that it can be taken as
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 29, 2007
              Sindelar wrote:
              > > I'm lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach.

              Andersen wrote:
              > You asked for comments on your statement (which is an unproven
              > guess). I briefly showed that it would follow from a well-known
              > and trusted conjecture, sometimes called the prime k-tuple
              > conjecture
              > (that name is sometimes restricted to special cases). Of course
              > it's
              > less "convoluted" to not relate your guess to anything else like
              > previously studied things. If you want something unconvoluted
              > (but not very useful by itself) then here it is: I guess your guess
              > is
              > right.

              Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing "I'm lost here. Seems
              like a convoluted approach." Looking back at this, I can see that it can
              be taken as arrogant criticism. Gad, that is not what I meant it to be. I
              should have written "I am unable to follow your explanation. It seems
              complicated to me because I know nothing about admissible prime
              constellations, but I accept your opinion". I regret my choice of words
              and hope you accept my sincere apology.

              Sindelar wrote in regard to Green and Tao:
              >>>To me, this is a very broad claim covering any type of (PAP-k, n).
              Jens can you explain your answer a bit more?

              Andersen wrote:
              > Just to be clear: My "No" was only to your second sentence:
              > "I would interpret Green and Tao as covering this type. (meaning
              (PAP-k, n=0))"
              >
              > You defined (PAP-k, n) as a PAP-k with n primes between each of
              > the k-1 pairs of successive primes in the AP. Tao and Green don't
              > mention this concept of equal prime counts and their theorem says
              > nothing about your (PAP-k, n) for n=0 or any other n value.
              > I don't know what else you want me to explain.
              > All I can say is that the theorem simply doesn't say it.

              Jens thank you. Nothing more to explain. You made it clear that the Green
              and Tao theorem does not apply to type (PAP-k, n=0 or greater). And thank
              you for an example of a (PAP-8, 5). Don't know how you calculated that so
              quickly. I was beginning to think there might be a limit on k.

              Bill Sindelar

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • w_sindelar@juno.com
              On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:55:00 -0000 elevensmooth ... I m glad you did, and I thank you. You must be a mind reader. You somehow sensed why I got lost trying to
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 29, 2007
                On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:55:00 -0000 "elevensmooth"
                <elevensmooth@...> writes:
                > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, w_sindelar@... wrote:
                >
                > > Jens can you explain your answer a bit more?

                William Lipp wrote:
                > I'll try.

                I'm glad you did, and I thank you. You must be a mind reader. You somehow
                sensed why I got lost trying to follow Jens reasoning. Right off the bat
                I'm confronted with "admissible prime constellations" and right there I'm
                lost.

                Your neat little introductory on this greatly helped me understand what
                Jens meant. I'm going to study this concept in more detail. Regards with
                appreciation.

                Bill Sindelar
              • w_sindelar@juno.com
                On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:55:00 -0000 elevensmooth ... I m glad you did, and I thank you. You must be a mind reader. You somehow sensed why I got lost trying to
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 29, 2007
                  On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:55:00 -0000 "elevensmooth"
                  <elevensmooth@...> writes:
                  > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, w_sindelar@... wrote:
                  >
                  > > Jens can you explain your answer a bit more?

                  William Lipp wrote:
                  > I'll try.

                  I'm glad you did, and I thank you. You must be a mind reader. You somehow
                  sensed why I got lost trying to follow Jens reasoning. Right off the bat
                  I'm confronted with "admissible prime constellations" and right there I'm
                  lost.

                  Your neat little introductory on this greatly helped me understand what
                  Jens meant. I'm going to study this concept in more detail. Regards with
                  appreciation.

                  Bill Sindelar
                • Jens Kruse Andersen
                  ... No problem. You can search more information about admissible constellations with a search engine. If a prime p
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 29, 2007
                    Bill Sindelar wrote:
                    > Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing "I'm lost here. Seems
                    > like a convoluted approach."

                    No problem. You can search more information about admissible constellations
                    with a search engine.

                    If a prime p <= k does not divide the common difference in an AP-k then
                    p will divide at least one of the terms in the AP. In order to be
                    admissible, a PAP-k must therefore have a common difference which is
                    a multiple of k# (k primorial).
                    I guess a PAP-k with small difference (and therefore relatively few primes
                    between the terms) will have a better chance of being a (PAP-k, n),
                    because the number of primes can vary between fewer values.
                    A PAP-11 has minimal difference 11# = 2310, so 10 intervals of 2309
                    numbers must have the same prime count to produce a (PAP-11, n)
                    with minimal difference. That appears computationally too hard for me.

                    PAP-7 to PAP-10 all have minimal difference 10# = 7# = 210.
                    I used my old tuplet finder to systematically search a lot of PAP-10 with
                    difference 210 and count whether there happened to be an equal number
                    of primes between the terms. There were other things to use my only
                    computer for so the search stopped when only (PAP-8, n) had been found.
                    Hans Rosenthal is more patient and has found many (PAP-9, 0), also called
                    CPAP-9, with a version of the same program. (PAP-9, n>3) looks easier.
                    In 2004 he found the smallest known CPAP-8 = (PAP-8, 0) with
                    another version. I just tested the other PAP-8 from the search and found
                    a (PAP-8, 1) with difference 210:
                    64881326075217862991473794035228920286672784697 +
                    0,36,210,264,420,564,630,784,840,942,1050,1086,1260,1360,1470

                    --
                    Jens Kruse Andersen
                  • w_sindelar@juno.com
                    ... I m relieved. I was trying to get up some nerve to ask you what sort of ... I just tested the other PAP-8 from the search and ... equivalent to the above
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 2, 2007
                      Jens K. Anderson wrote:
                      > No problem. You can...
                      >>

                      I'm relieved. I was trying to get up some nerve to ask you what sort of
                      approach you used on (PAP-8, 5) when your mail arrived with the answer:

                      > I used my old tuplet finder to systematically search a lot of PAP-10
                      > with
                      > difference 210 and count whether there happened to be an equal
                      > number
                      > of primes between the terms. There were other things to use my only
                      > computer for so the search stopped when only (PAP-8, n) had been
                      > found.
                      I just tested the other PAP-8 from the search and
                      > found
                      > a (PAP-8, 1) with difference 210:
                      > 64881326075217862991473794035228920286672784697 +
                      > 0,36,210,264,420,564,630,784,840,942,1050,1086,1260,1360,1470

                      Sindelar wrote (Yahoo #19096):

                      >>The approach I used required making the following assumption, which is
                      equivalent to the above statement; Let S(p, n) represent an infinite
                      subset of the universal set of all consecutive odd primes, where p is the
                      first prime of the subset, and n (including 0) represents the number of
                      consecutive primes from the universal set that have been omitted between
                      adjacent primes of the subset.Then any S(p, n) contains a set of any
                      number k of primes in arithmetic progression. The program I wrote is
                      based on this.>

                      I used Pari-gp for this. For every set of k consecutive primes, which has
                      n skipped consecutive primes between its adjacent terms, after an
                      inputted integer, it checks if the terms of that set are in arithmetic
                      progression. Jens, is this slower than your approach with your tuplet
                      finder? If one could prove the above assumption, would that also prove
                      that all admissible prime constellations have infinitely many occurrences
                      as you put it, or only those that have a (PAP-k, n) subset?

                      Sindelar wrote (Yahoo #19093):

                      >>Obviously, the ordinal numbers of the primes in such a PAP are also in
                      arithmetic progression (AP) with a constant difference of (n+1).>

                      This suggested trying this assumption which is just a fancy way of
                      defining a (PAP-k, n): In any infinite arithmetic progression of positive
                      integers with a common difference d, there exists a subset of k
                      consecutive integers, so that if each integer in that subset is
                      considered to represent the ordinal number of a prime, the associated
                      primes will be in arithmetic progression of length k with (d-1)
                      consecutive primes between adjacent terms of that arithmetic progression.
                      (Ordinal number of a prime means its position in the numerically ordered
                      set of all primes, with prime 2 being number 1). It works but is more
                      computationally complicated. What do you think?

                      Bill Sindelar

                      Bill Sindelar
                    • Jens Kruse Andersen
                      ... I would expect your method to be much slower based on how randomly consecutive prime gaps appear to be distributed. ... No, and also no to the only-part.
                      Message 10 of 12 , Oct 2, 2007
                        Bill Sindelar wrote:
                        > I used Pari-gp for this. For every set of k consecutive primes, which has
                        > n skipped consecutive primes between its adjacent terms, after an
                        > inputted integer, it checks if the terms of that set are in arithmetic
                        > progression. Jens, is this slower than your approach with your tuplet
                        > finder?

                        I would expect your method to be much slower based on how
                        "randomly" consecutive prime gaps appear to be distributed.

                        > If one could prove the above assumption, would that also prove
                        > that all admissible prime constellations have infinitely many occurrences
                        > as you put it, or only those that have a (PAP-k, n) subset?

                        No, and also no to the only-part. Your assumption says nothing
                        about the existence of specific differences between primes,
                        so it says nothing about any admissible constellation.

                        > This suggested trying this assumption which is just a fancy way of
                        > defining a (PAP-k, n):
                        .....
                        > It works but is more
                        > computationally complicated. What do you think?

                        "computationally complicated" refers to something computational,
                        for example the time to compute something with a given algorithm.
                        You have made another formulation of your conjecture but not
                        described an algorithm so "computationally complicated" is a
                        concept which does not apply.

                        I don't have time to discuss more.

                        --
                        Jens Kruse Andersen
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.