7
$\begingroup$

Let $n > 1$ and $m > 0$ be two integers and $P_n$ be the $n^{th}$ prime.

Prove: $$P_{n+m} \ge P_n + P_m .$$

Can you give a hint, reference, comment, or proof?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This is equivalent to the well-known conjecture $\pi(x+y) \le \pi(x)+\pi(y)$, which is now widely believed to be false because it contradicts the prime $k$-tuples conjecture. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2018 at 2:41
  • $\begingroup$ $\pi(x)$ is not equivalent to $P_x$ $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2018 at 2:42
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I didn't claim that $\pi(x)=P_x$; I claimed that your inequality is equivalent to my inequality. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2018 at 2:47
  • $\begingroup$ I am sorry, how these are equivalent, may you show me? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2018 at 2:50
  • $\begingroup$ @GregMartin I am sorry, May You see answer below and my comment below? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2018 at 7:45

1 Answer 1

13
$\begingroup$

This is an expanded version of my previous answer. It shows, among other things, that the OP's conjecture contradicts the $k$-tuple conjecture for $k=459$.

1. Let $r\geq 0$ be a fixed integer. I claim that the following two statements are equivalent (for integral variables $x,y,n,m$): $$\forall x,y\geq 2:\pi(x+y)\leq\pi(x)+\pi(y)+r\tag{1}$$ $$\forall n,m\geq 2: P_n+P_m-1\leq P_{n+m+r-1}\tag{2}$$

$(1)\Rightarrow(2)$: Let $n,m\geq 2$ be arbitrary, and apply $(1)$ for $x:=P_n-1$ and $y:=P_m-1$, which are at least $2$. We get $\pi(P_n+P_m-2)\leq\pi(P_n-1)+\pi(P_m-1)+r=n+m+r-2$, whence $P_n+P_m-2<P_{n+m+r-1}$. That is, $P_n+P_m-1\leq P_{n+m+r-1}$, which is $(2)$.

$(2)\Rightarrow(1)$: Let $x,y\geq 2$ be arbitrary, and apply $(2)$ for $n:=\pi(x)+1$ and $m:=\pi(y)+1$, which are at least $2$. We get $x+y\leq P_n+P_m-2\leq P_{n+m+r-1}-1$, whence $\pi(x+y)\leq n+m+r-2$. That is, $\pi(x+y)\leq\pi(x)+\pi(y)+r$, which is $(1)$.

2. The OP's conjecture is weaker than $(1)$ and $(2)$ for $r=0$, but stronger than $(1)$ and $(2)$ for $r=1$. At any rate, the $k$-tuple conjecture is inconsistent with $(1)$ and $(2)$ for $r=1$, hence it is also inconsistent with the OP's conjecture. Indeed, there exists an admissible $459$-tuple in $\{0,1,\dots,3240\}$, see here. Hence, by the $k$-tuple conjecture, there exists a $y\geq 2$ such that $\pi(3241+y)-\pi(y)\geq 459$. However, $(1)$ for $r=1$ and $x=3241$ would yield that $\pi(3241+y)-\pi(y)\leq\pi(3241)+1=458$, contradicting the previous inequality.

3. In fact the $k$-tuple conjecture is inconsistent with $(1)$ and $(2)$ for any integer $r\geq 0$. More precisely, assuming the $k$-tuple conjecture, Hensley and Richards proved in 1973 that for any $x\geq 2$ we have $$\sup_{y\geq x}\bigl(\pi(x+y)-\pi(x)-\pi(y)\bigr)\geq\bigl(\log 2-o(1)\bigr)\frac{x}{(\log x)^2}.$$

$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Nice. I will stop typing up my answer. $\endgroup$
    – kodlu
    Commented Jun 27, 2018 at 3:55
  • $\begingroup$ My comment is true? $P_{m+n}$ may $>>$ $P_{n+m-1}$ but $P_n+P_m \approx P_n+P_m-1$ ?? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2018 at 4:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Freeman: $(1)$ is believed to be false, because it contradicts the $k$-tuple conjecture. For a nice short explanation see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Jun 27, 2018 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ I am sorry. I think your proof maybe false at (2)==> (1). I think (2) ==> $\pi(x+y) \le \pi(x)+\pi(y)+1$ ? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2018 at 16:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .