3
$\begingroup$

I want to know how many (infinitely many) pairs of primes are known.

For convenience, let me give two definitions.

For any nonconstant polynomial $f(x)\in \mathbb{Z}[x]$, define $A_f=\lbrace f(p) \in \mathbb{Z} \mid \text{Both of $p$, $f(p)$ are primes}\rbrace$.

Also, define $P=\lbrace f(x)\in \mathbb{Z}[x] \mid \lvert A_f\rvert=\infty\rbrace$, where $\lvert A\rvert$ is the cardinality of set $A$.

Let me give some examples. If $f(x)=x$, then it is (trivial) prime pairs (i.e., $f(x)=x \in P$).

If $f(x)=x+2$, then the case is that the famous twin prime conjecture (i.e., twin prime conjecture is equivalent to determine that $f(x)=x+2$ is in $P$ or not).

I also heard that the case of $f(x)=4x+1$ is also (famous) conjecture.

My question is whether there are any nontrivial polynomials which are known to lie in $P$?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ You might find the survey "Equidistribution and Primes" math.princeton.edu/sarnak/EquidPrimes.pdf by Peter Sarnak interesting as it discusses results in this direction. $\endgroup$
    – j.c.
    Commented Dec 8, 2010 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ If f has degree greater than 1, it's not even known if the cardinality of the set of prime values of f is infinite. If f is linear then we just get variants of the twin prime conjecture and, to my knowledge, they are all wide open (except where they are false for trivial reasons). $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2010 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ How does your q. relate to the Schinzel's conjectures? $\endgroup$
    – Wlod AA
    Commented May 29, 2023 at 9:07

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

As a special case of Schinzel's hypothesis H (a well-known open problem) if $f(x)$ is irreducible, has positive leading coefficient and has no “fixed divisor” then $f(x)$ should lie in what you call $P$. But nothing of this sort has been proved and I am confident that not a single polynomial (other than $x$) has been proved to be in what you call $P$. For polynomials of degree at least two, it's even worse, there is no polynomial which has been proved to take prime values at infinitely many integers (let alone primes).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Felipe: I guess $f(x)=x+1$ is clearly not in $P$ but it's irreducible, has positive leading coefficient, and no "fixed divisor", right? i.e. it's not quite Schinzel, it's related but it's a bit different. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2010 at 20:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Kevin: the hypotheses of Schinzel's hypothesis (ha) rule that out, but Felipe has misstated them slightly; we need x f(x) to have no fixed divisor. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2010 at 20:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: I am confused. Schinzel is all about $f(n)$ being prime, not $f(p)$. I think you must be talking about a variant I don't know. What is the story about $xf(x)$? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2010 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: oh, I see the trick now :-) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2010 at 21:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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