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

I have an intuition that Average of twin prime pairs is always Abundant number except for 4 and 6. For example:

12 < 1+2+3+4+6=16

18 < 1+2+3+6+9=21


But I can't prove this. Could you give me any good idea?

2010-08-22 I think that Any prime is a factor of average of twin prime pair. Do you agree with me?

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off topic by Akhil Mathew, Andy Putman, Qiaochu Yuan, Robin Chapman, S. Carnahan Aug 22 '10 at 7:30

Questions on MathOverflow are expected to relate to research level mathematics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Questions about things like abundant numbers (which fall under the category of "recreational mathematics") are probably best asked at – Andy Putman Aug 20 '10 at 2:56
What are "things like abundant numbers"? Specifically, how do you differentiate between important concepts and recreational ones? – muad Aug 20 '10 at 11:09
I agree this is a genuine mathematical question, but there is a general instinct to close a question like this. I should explain the reason. This question has been around for over 2000 years. The Ancient Greeks probably thought about this question. I personally don't know the answer, but one of the two following possibilities hold: 1) This question can be answered by elementary methods known before Euler's time. In this case, this is not a research level question. – Alexander Woo Aug 20 '10 at 21:02
2) This question requires algebraic or analytic number theory methods. (For example, a proof might require use of the Riemann zeta function.) In this case, the poser of the question has indicated no familiarity with any of these methods. (Arguably, this still might not make it a research level question, depending on the depth of the methods required.) – Alexander Woo Aug 20 '10 at 21:07
@a-boy, not much point in tacking a new question on to one that has been closed, as no one can post an answer to a closed question. Then again, there may not be much point in posting it as a new question, either, as an affirmative answer would settle the twin primes conjecture, a negative answer is unlikely, and whether anyone agrees with you or not is not what MO is about. – Gerry Myerson Aug 22 '10 at 12:43
up vote 9 down vote accepted

Prove the sum is always a multiple of 6, then prove that multiples of 6 are abundant.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you! I see. – user8140 Aug 20 '10 at 2:40

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