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

Let   $p_1\ p_2\ \ldots$ be the sequence of all natural prime numbers. There is a slight (just slight) but clear tendency for imitating the number of primes in an interval $(p_k;\ p_n)$   by the number of primes in the double interval   $(p_k\!+p_{k+1};\ p_{n-1}\!+p_n)$; possibly by   $(2\cdot p_k; 2\cdot p_n)$   too. Let me ask two open questions along this line. The first one will be most likely hopeless while the second one may lead to a discussion and at least to numerical computations.

P1.   Does there exist a natural number   $d$   such that for every natural number   $n$   the real interval

$$ (2\cdot p_n;\ 2\cdot p_{n+d})$$

contains at least one prime?

P2.   (when P1 fails): Given a natural number   $d$,   let   $w(d)$   be the least natural number such that the interval of P1 (see above) does not contain any prime number. What is the growth of the sequence

$$w(1)\ \ w(2)\ \ w(3)\ \ldots$$


The above notions got shifted from my original definition by a half of a prime. The question Q2 below is still equivalent to question P1 above:

Q1.   Does there exist a natural number   $d>1$   such that for every natural number   $n$   the real interval

$$ (p_n\!+p_{n+1};\ p_{n+d-1}\!+p_{n+d})$$

contains at least one prime?

Q2.   (when Q1 fails): Given a natural number   $d>1$,   let   $v(d)$   be the least natural number such that the interval of Q1 (see above) does not contain any prime number. What is the growth of the sequence

$$v(2)\ \ v(3)\ \ v(3)\ \ldots$$

EXAMPLE   Consider the consecutive primes

$$p_{360} = 1901 \qquad p_{361}=1907 \qquad p_{362}=1913$$

Then the real interval

$$(p_{360}\!+p_{361};\ p_{361}\!+p_{362})\ \ =\ \ (3802; 3820)$$

contains no primes, i.e.   $v(2)\le 360$.


In general, I'd be interested in similar relative properties of primes, where primes are studied in relations to other primes, and the relation is not trivial, meaning not reduced to general properties between integers.

share|improve this question
1  
You might consider the growth of maximal prime gaps. I expect v exists and is superexponential. See Tomas Silva and Nicely web pages on gaps to start. –  The Masked Avenger Sep 3 '13 at 5:44
    
@TMA, I'll get hold of the paper. Thank you. –  Wlodzimierz Holsztynski Sep 3 '13 at 18:27
1  
I also read of a conjecture which asserts a pair of twin primes between $p_n^2$ and $p_{n+1}^2$. –  The Masked Avenger Sep 3 '13 at 23:20
    
Twins?! -- sounds ambitious :-) –  Wlodzimierz Holsztynski Sep 3 '13 at 23:47
1  
Perhaps. Not as ambitious as the (failed) conjecture that there are a pair of twin primes between $n^2$ and $(n+1)^2$. –  The Masked Avenger Sep 3 '13 at 23:55
add comment

1 Answer

The answer to your first question is most surely no. Certainly this follows from the Hardy-Littlewood $k$-tuple conjectures. Choose $n$ so that the primes $p_n$, $\ldots$, $p_{n+d}$ are all very close to each other. Hardy-Littlewood says that there are lots of such tuples. Then you are asking for one more prime in the very short interval $[2p_n,2p_{n+d}]$ (essentially) and the sieve could be used to show that this happens rarely. This will also give a conjectural way of tackling question 2 -- just find a small admissible $d$-tuple (which has been discussed before on MO).

It may even be possible to prove this unconditionally, although I don't fully see this. By Westzynthius/Erdos-Rankin you can construct largish intervals without primes, and if you halve that interval usually you will get a reasonable number of primes there.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.