Return to Answer

It is conjectured (see e.g. Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5886) that

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\#\Big\{m \le n : \alpha<\frac{p_{m+1} - p_m}{\ln p_m} < \beta \Big\} = \int_\alpha^\beta e^{-t} dt, $$ and thus in particular your value should be $1-e^{-1}$. (GPY proved that this is positive for any $0=\alpha<\beta$ when $\lim_{n \to \infty}$ is replaced by $\liminf_{n \to \infty}$). Gallagher proved this result under the Hardy-Littlewood $k$-prime conjecture, but since GPY also proved conditional results under the Elliot-Halberstam conjecture which are still weaker than this conjecture, it seems unlikely that the method used to prove Zhang's recent breakthrough result is sufficient to prove such a result (for reasons why Zhang's method can not give anything better than what can be proved under Elliot Halberstam, see this question Does Zhang's theorem generalize to $3$ or more primes in an interval of fixed length? )

It is conjectured (see e.g. Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5886) that

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\#\Big\{m \le n : \alpha<\frac{p_{m+1} - p_m}{\ln p_m} < \beta \Big\} = \int_\alpha^\beta e^{-t} dt, $$ and thus in particular your value should be $1-e^{-1}$. (GPY proved that this is positive for any $0=\alpha<\beta$ when $\lim_{n \to \infty}$ is replaced by $\liminf_{n \to \infty}$). Gallagher proved this result under the Hardy-Littlewood $k$-prime conjecture, but since GPY also proved conditional results under the Elliot-Halberstam conjecture which are still weaker than this conjecture, it seems unlikely that the method used to prove Zhang's recent breakthrough result is sufficient to prove such a result (for reasons why Zhang's method can not give anything better than what can be proved under Elliot Halberstam, see this question Does Zhang's theorem generalize to $3$ or more primes in an interval of fixed length? )

It is conjectured (see e.g. Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5886) that

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\#\Big\{m \le n : \alpha<\frac{p_{m+1} - p_m}{\ln p_m} < \beta \Big\} = \int_\alpha^\beta e^{-t} dt, $$ and thus in particular your value should be $1-e^{-1}$. (GPY proved that this is positive for any $0=\alpha<\beta$). Gallagher proved this result under the Hardy-Littlewood $k$-prime conjecture, but since GPY also proved conditional results under the Elliot-Halberstam conjecture which are still weaker than this conjecture, it seems unlikely that the method used to prove Zhang's recent breakthrough result is sufficient to prove such a result (for reasons why Zhang's method can not give anything better than what can be proved under Elliot Halberstam, see this question Does Zhang's theorem generalize to $3$ or more primes in an interval of fixed length? )

It is conjectured (see e.g. Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5886) that

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\#\Big\{m \le n : \alpha<\frac{p_{m+1} - p_m}{\ln p_m} < \beta \Big\} = \int_\alpha^\beta e^{-t} dt, $$ and thus in particular your value should be $1-e^{-1}$. (GPY proved that this is positive for any $0=\alpha<\beta$ when $\lim_{n \to \infty}$ is replaced by $\liminf_{n \to \infty}$). Gallagher proved this result under the Hardy-Littlewood $k$-prime conjecture, but since GPY also proved conditional results under the Elliot-Halberstam conjecture which are still weaker than this conjecture, it seems unlikely that the method used to prove Zhang's recent breakthrough result is sufficient to prove such a result (for reasons why Zhang's method can not give anything better than what can be proved under Elliot Halberstam, see this question Does Zhang's theorem generalize to $3$ or more primes in an interval of fixed length? )

It is conjectured (see e.g. Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5886) that

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\#\Big\{m \le n : \alpha<\frac{p_{m+1} - p_m}{\ln p_m} < \beta \Big\} = \int_\alpha^\beta e^{-t} dt, $$ and thus in particular your value should be $1-e^{-1}$. (GPY proved that this is positive for any $0=\alpha<\beta$). I am not sure about recent progress (in particular if Zhang's recent breakthrough result is relevant) on this problem.

It is conjectured (see e.g. Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5886) that

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\#\Big\{m \le n : \alpha<\frac{p_{m+1} - p_m}{\ln p_m} < \beta \Big\} = \int_\alpha^\beta e^{-t} dt, $$ and thus in particular your value should be $1-e^{-1}$. (GPY proved that this is positive for any $0=\alpha<\beta$). Gallagher proved this result under the Hardy-Littlewood $k$-prime conjecture, but since GPY also proved conditional results under the Elliot-Halberstam conjecture which are still weaker than this conjecture, it seems unlikely that the method used to prove Zhang's recent breakthrough result is sufficient to prove such a result (for reasons why Zhang's method can not give anything better than what can be proved under Elliot Halberstam, see this question Does Zhang's theorem generalize to $3$ or more primes in an interval of fixed length? )