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

Re: k-tuples and prime packing edited

Expand Messages
  • Dick
    Hi, Seems that you are establishing the magnitude of kv(w) based on the 2nd Hardy-Littlewood conjecture. The k-tuple conjecture is the first. It has already
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 28, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      Seems that you are establishing the magnitude of kv(w) based on the
      2nd Hardy-Littlewood conjecture. The k-tuple conjecture is the first.
      It has already been established that the 2 conjectures are
      incompatible with each other and most believe if only one of them is
      false, it would probably be the 2nd. Assuming no errors in the rest
      of your argument, perhaps you are showing the incompatibility of the
      conjectures more so than demonstrating one of them to be false.

      http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hardy-LittlewoodConjectures.html

      Can you clarify
      > By the Hardy-Littlewood k-tuples conjecture, kv(w) can be defined as
      > kv(w) <= pi(w+x) - pi(x) for all 'x' and 'w' when 'x' > 'w'.

      Regards,

      Dick Boland

      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <tom@...> wrote:
      >
      > Fixed typing errors and fixed links - sorry for repost.
      >
      > Define kv(w) as the number of primes that can be packed into an
      > interval of 'w' consecutive integers. This value is not a maximum
      > because denser patterns are still being found in the search range up
      > to w=41741, as can be seen in
      > http://www.opertech.com/primes/updates.html .
      > The current values for kv(w) are at
      > http://www.opertech.com/primes/summary.txt , which is an ascii comma
      > delimited text file.
      >
      > By the Hardy-Littlewood k-tuples conjecture, kv(w) can be defined as
      > kv(w) <= pi(w+x) - pi(x) for all 'x' and 'w' when 'x' > 'w'.
      >
      > Also, a proof by Montgomery and Vaughn (1970) says,
      > pi(w+x) - pi(x) < 2 * pi(w).
      >
      > After substituting, kv(w) is now
      > kv(w) < 2 * pi(w),
      > and removing pi(w) from both sides,
      > kv(w) - pi(w) < pi(w).
      >
      > A plot of kv(w) - pi(w) is at
      > http://www.opertech.com/primes/trophy.bmp .
      > This plot shows the value of kv(w) - pi(w) increasing at a rate of
      > about w/268-20. In fact, the slope appears to be 'increasing' or
      > concave up.
      >
      > The plot provides the following
      > w/268 - 20 < kv(w) - pi(w) for large w.
      >
      > Continuing, the inequality is,
      > w/268 - 20 < kv(w) - pi(w) < pi(w) for large w
      >
      > and finally,
      > w/268 - 20 < pi(w) for large w.
      >
      > But this inequality DOES NOT HOLD for large w, let w=e^268c then,
      > e^268c / 268 - 20 < e^268c / 268c (pi(w) ~ w/ln(w))
      >
      > c*e^268c - 20*268*c < e^268c
      >
      > (c-1)*e^268c < 20*268*c
      >
      > when c=0 -1*1 < 0 -- true
      > when c=1 0*1 < 20*268 -- true
      > when c=2 1*e^536 < 20*536 -- false
      >
      > the inequality holds for c<=1 but at c=2
      >
      > e^536 < 20*536 is false! In fact at c=1+a, 'a' relatively small,
      > the inequality fails.
      >
      > So, either the k-tuples conjecture is false, or the plot of kv(w)-pi
      > (w) has an inflection point and does not have an increasing slope.
      > The latter option is doubtful as kv(w)-pi(w) is a combinatorial
      > object.
      >
      > Any and all input is appreciated.
      >
      > Thanx
      > Tom
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.