0
$\begingroup$

Suppose one finds the earliest prime gap of at least a certain size $g$, so that $p_{n+1}-p_n=g$ and $n$ is the smallest index for which the gap is as big as $g$.

Now consider the relative size of the gap: $\dfrac{p_{n+1}-p_n}{p_n}$

When will $n$ be the largest index for which the relative size is that big?

Is the set of all values of $n$ for which that happens infinite?

Is the set of all values of $n$ for which that does not happen infinite?

(For example, this happens when $p_n=3$ and when $p_n = 113$.)

36 views and two votes, but complete silence ensued when I posted this on math.stackexchange.com. This time it's verbatim the same as what I put there: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/870438/when-is-the-earliest-large-prime-gap-also-the-latest-large-prime-gap

PS in response to comments below: Maybe I should be more explicit. The number $113$ is the smallest prime for which the absolute gap size, $127-113=14$, is $\ge14$, and if I'm not mistaken, is also the largest prime for which the relative gap size $(127-113)/113=0.12389\ldots$, is $\ge(127-113)/113=0.12389\ldots$.

So consider three sets:

  • values of $n$ are that are simultaneously the smallest for which the absolute gap size is $\ge$ some number and the largest for which the relative gap size is $\le$ some number;

  • values of $n$ that are the smallest for which the absolute gap size is $\ge$ some number but not the largest for which the relative gap size is $\le$ whichever value they take on;

  • values of $n$ that are the largest for which the relative gap size is $\le$ some number but not the smallest for which the absolute gap size is $\ge$ whichever number they take on.

So the question would be which of these are empty, which are non-empty but finite, and which are infinite.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Even though the current knowledge of good bounds on maximal gaps is small, I think enough is known since 1931 (Westzynthius showing that the relative size is greater than average for infinitely many n by a ratio of something like loglogn) that your two sets n are both infinite. (It may even follow from older results.) $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2014 at 3:53
  • $\begingroup$ @TheMaskedAvenger : I'm not seeing that your comment actually answers the questions. If I'm not mistaken, in the case of $113$, where the relative gap size, $(127-113)/113=14/113\approx 0.12389\ldots$ is bigger than any that occurs later. I have to suspect that "bigger than average" means bigger than some "average" that decreases as $n$ grows. $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2014 at 4:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I notice that mathoverflow has no "prime gaps" tag. Stackexchange has that. Should that be created? $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2014 at 4:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We don't have the knowledge of when the next maximal gap occurs ( after the ones that have been tabulated for primes below 10^17 or therabouts). We do know that the growth is sublinear, from Hoheisel and others, so lim sup of the relative size is decreasing. I think this means the first of your three sets is infinite. I suspect work of Westzynthius et al shows that the union of your other two sets is infinite, but I am less sure of that. $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2014 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by saying that the lim sup of the relative size is decreasing? The relative size is $(p_{n+1}-p_n)/p_n$. That is a sequence, and it has a lim sup, and its lim sup is a number, not a sequence. What would it mean to say a number is decreasing? (And I'll be very surprised if you tell me the lim sup is not $0$.) $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2014 at 22:43

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.