MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What are the main ideas of Harald Helfgott's proof that all odd $n \geq 5$ is the sum of 3 primes?

share|cite|improve this question
Didn't Vinogradov prove it for sufficiently large odd numbers in something like 1937? So, it seems reasonable to believe that deciding the question one way or the other would be a matter of time after that. – Geoff Robinson May 14 '13 at 7:02
For the first question, I would simply read the introduction of Helfgott's paper. – François Brunault May 14 '13 at 7:39
Your question seems suitable for a blog. Since Terry Tao already has a blog discussion on this topic, I've voted to close. – Ryan Budney May 14 '13 at 11:39
It would be nice to have the possibility to downvote (or upvote) the actions of closing some of the questions. – Cristi Stoica May 14 '13 at 13:05
Geoff - the problem was that previously existing constants were larger than the number of subatomic particles in the universe multiplied by the number of microseconds since the Big Bang... – H A Helfgott May 14 '13 at 16:58
up vote 18 down vote accepted

I think this blog post of Terry Tao, as well as the comments following it (including some from Helfgott) answer this question as completely as one could reasonably hope.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you! – Rodrigo A. Pérez May 14 '13 at 16:47
Note that the blog post was written a year ago. It is still relevant, though (particularly the comments by Helfgott). – Timothy Chow May 15 '13 at 15:45
Does this also show every odd number $n > 5$ is of form $n=2p+q$ where $p$ and $q$ are some primes? – Turbo Jun 26 '13 at 15:36
I would say Terry Tao's post is a good explanation of why proofs based on the circle method (such as mine) will not, in and of themselves, work out for the binary Goldbach problem. My comments give some idea of my strategy for the ternary problem (as of May 2012), but I think I've explained things better elsewhere. – H A Helfgott Dec 24 '13 at 10:22

It needs to be iterated once again, that Vinogradov showed in 1937 that all large enough odd numbers are sum of three primes. The current contribution of Helfgott merely aims at bridging the gap between large enough and all number.

This is an interesting problem. However where-as Vinogradov's proof introduced the fundamentally new idea of bilinear forms, Helfgott contribution is on a much smaller scale. While it contributes to the particular sub-field of analytic number theory concerned with explicit estimates, it most likely does not contribute to the larger field, and instead uses idea that were around for a long time.

share|cite|improve this answer
"It needs to be iterated once again,..." Why? And, you do not answer the question. – quid May 14 '13 at 10:15
But pooper is at least living up to his or her name! – Ryan Budney May 14 '13 at 11:42
Not to be an anti-pooper, but, actually, most of the ideas and improvements in my proof are qualitative rather than quantitative. I'm not an explicit person by training, and I have no doubt that careful specialists could improve on some of the constants within the proof by being more clever than I was. One of several "morals" of the story (not really new, but more people should be aware of it) is the close relationship between bilinear forms, the circle method and the large sieve. Of course, Vinogradov was working before the development of the large sieve. – H A Helfgott May 14 '13 at 16:57
I actually disagree (in good faith I think) with pooper: I do think analytic number theorists who don't care a fig about explicit constants would find several things in what I've done to be of interest. I just gave a talk highlighting the more conceptual bits. At any rate, I'll make the obvious point that not just Vinogradov but also Hardy and Littlewood deserve credit as initiators here. – H A Helfgott May 14 '13 at 20:43
Er, yes. See section 1.2, "History", of majarcs.pdf, and section 1.2, "History", of minarcs.pdf, as well as the first and second paragraphs of each paper. – H A Helfgott May 15 '13 at 11:53

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.