Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Assume Goldbach's conjecture. Then for every $n\ge 2$ there exists at least one non-negative integer $r\le n-2$ such that both $n+r$ and $n-r$ are primes. Let's write $r_{0}(n):=\inf\{r\le n-2, (n-r,n+r)\in\mathbb{P}^{2}\}$ and $k_{0}(n):=\pi(n+r_{0}(n))-\pi(n-r_{0}(n))$.

I call $r$ a primality radius of $n$, $r_{0}(n)$ the fundamental primality radius of $n$ and $k_{0}(n)$ the order of centrality of $n$. I say that $n$ is a $k$-central number if and only if $k_{0}(n)=k$.

Now, the number of $k$-central numbers less than $x$ $\pi_{C,k}(x)$ should verify the following relation:

$$\pi_{C,k}(x)=\vert\{n\le x, k_{0}(n)=k\}\vert$$

and thus $\pi_{C,k}(x)\le\dfrac{\pi(x+\max_{n\le x}r_{0}(n))}{k}(1+o(1))$.

I now formulate the following conjecture:

Negligible fundamental primality radius conjecture (NFPR conjecture for short):

$$\forall\varepsilon>0,\forall x>2, \max_{n\le x}r_{0}(n)=O_{\varepsilon}(x^{\varepsilon})$$

Could one deduce from this conjecture that $\dfrac{\pi(x+\max_{n\le x}r_{0}(n))}{k}\sim\dfrac{\pi(x)}{k}$?

If so, one would have $\pi_{C,k}(x)\le \dfrac{\pi(x)}{k}(1+o(1))$.

Hence $\displaystyle{\mathcal{N}_{k}(x):=\sum_{l=0}^{k}\pi_{C,l}(x)\le\pi(x)(1+H_{k})(1+o(1))}$, where $H_{k}$ is the $k$-th harmonic number.

So that one should have $\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n+k})-\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n})\le k(1+H_{k})(1+o(1))=O(k\log k)$.

Now, from the prime number theorem, $\mathcal{N}_{k}(x)\sim x$ for $k$ large enough and less than $x$. So, is it possible to prove rigorously that the conjunction of Goldbach's conjecture and NFPR conjecture would entail that $\lim\inf_{n\to\infty} p_{n+k}-p_{n}=O(k\log k)$ which, as stated in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0948.pdf, follows from Hardy-Littlewood's prime k-tuples conjecture?

Thanks in advance.

EDIT November 22nd 2013: I guess a better way to give an estimation of $\pi_{C,k}(x)$, and thus of $\mathcal{N}_{k}(x)$, would be to establish rigorously that $\pi_{C,k}(x)\asymp \frac{\pi(x)}{k}$ under NFPR conjecture (since the PNT shows that under this conjecture, $\pi(x+r_{0}(x))\sim\pi(x)$). Is such an asymptotics correct?

EDIT January 23rd 2014: Let's define $\alpha(x,k)$ as follows: $\alpha(x,k):=\frac{\pi(x)}{k}-\pi_{C,k}(x)$. It seems that there exists $C>0$ (and possibly not much bigger than $1$) such that $\forall(x,k)\vert \alpha(x,k)\vert<C$. I call this statement "$\alpha$ conjecture".

A direct consequence of $\alpha$ conjecture is that one would have $\pi_{C,k}(x)=\frac{\pi(x)}{k}-O(1)$, which is even stronger than $\pi_{C,k}(x)=\frac{\pi(x)}{k}(1+o(1))$ and could give further evidence for the desired conclusion: indeed one would have $\mathcal{N}_{k}(x)=\pi(x)(1+H_{k})-O(k)$ and therefore $\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n+k})-\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n})=k(1+H_{k})-O(k)\sim k\log k$.

EDIT January 23rd 2014 (bis): I think I have a proof of the natural strenghtening of $\alpha$ conjecture (hence called "strong $\alpha$ conjecture") that says that $\forall(x,k)\vert\alpha(x,k)\vert\leqslant 1$.

Suppose indeed that $n\leqslant x$ is a $k$-central number with $k>0$. Then there exists a unique $m$ such that $n=\frac{p_{m}+p_{m+k}}{2}$. One has obviously $p_{m}<n<p_{m+k}$ hence $m\leqslant\pi(n)\leqslant m+k$ and thus $m\geqslant \pi(n)-k$. Moreover $m\leqslant\pi(x)$, so that the total number of $k$-central numbers below $x$ verifies $\pi_{C,k}(x)=\delta\vert\{m', \frac{p_{m}+p_{m+k}}{2}\leqslant x\}\vert+h_{k}(x)$ where $\delta$ is the probability for $n'=\frac{p_{m'}+p_{m'+k}}{2}$ to be $k$-central and $0\leqslant \vert h_{k}(x)\vert<1$. There are $k$ possibilities for the value of $k_{0}(n')$, namely $k_{0}(n')=1, 2, \cdots, k$. Since $n'$ is $k$-central if and only if $k_{0}(n')=k$, one gets $\delta=\frac{1}{k}$.

Thus $\pi_{C,k}(x)\geqslant\frac{\pi(x)-k}{k}$. Since $\pi_{C,k}(x)=\frac{\pi(x)}{k}-\alpha(x,k)$ one finally gets $\vert\alpha(x,k)\vert\leqslant max(\vert h_{k}(x)\vert,1)$ hence $\vert\alpha(x,k)\vert\leqslant 1$.

Obviously the next step consists in showing that $\lim\inf_{n\to+\infty} p_{n+k}-p_{n}=O(\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n+k})-\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n}))$ and hopefully $\lim\inf_{n\to+\infty} p_{n+k}-p_{n}\sim \mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n+k})-\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n})$. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Edit June 1st 2014: One has $p_{n+k}-p_{n}=\mathcal{N}_{n+k}(p_{n+k})-\mathcal{N}_{n+k}(p_{n})$ and thus $\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n+k})-\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n})=p_{n+k}-p_{n}-(n+k)(H_{n+k}-H_{n})+n(H_{n+k}-H_n)+O(n+k)=p_{n+k}-p_{n}-k(H_{n+k}-H_{k})+O(n+k).$

Hence $\dfrac{p_{n+k}-p_{n}}{\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n+k})-\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n})}=1+O(\dfrac{n+k}{k\log k})+O(\dfrac{\log n}{\log k})$. As Maynard proved that $\lim\inf_{n\to\infty}p_{n+k}-p_{n}$ only depends on $k$, one should obtain $\lim\inf_{n\to\infty}\dfrac{p_{n+k}-p_{n}}{\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n+k})-\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n})}$ substracting the divergent part of the error term above, hence $\lim\inf_{n\to\infty}\dfrac{p_{n+k}-p_{n}}{\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n+k})-\mathcal{N}_{k}(p_{n})}=1+O(\dfrac{1}{\log k})$ and thus $\lim\inf_{n\to\infty}p_{n+k}-p_{n}\sim k\log k.$

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.