Consider number of twin primes less than $x$. We know that this number less than $\frac{Cx}{\log^2 x}$ for some constant $C$.

Denote by $p_n$ the $n$-th prime number. Do we have the same result about number of prime numbers $p_n<x$ such that $p_{n+1} - p_n < D$ for some constant $D$?

  • $\begingroup$ Yes, in fact one can deduce such results for at least one even integer between 2 and 240 following the recent advances of James Maynard and the subsequent polymath project. $\endgroup$ – Stanley Yao Xiao Jun 13 '15 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ See the "Added 2" section in my response for an effective upper bound due to J. R. Chen. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Nov 3 '16 at 20:12

Yes, and this can be proved in the same way, e.g. by the large sieve or the Selberg sieve. Of course, the constant $C$ will depend on $D$.

For a lower bound (for $D=248$ at the moment), see my response to this question.

Added 1. As GuestPoster pointed out to me, the upper bound $Z(x)\ll x/\log^2 x$ for the number of twin primes up to $x$ was already established by Brun. His original paper is available here. In fact Brun shows $Z(x)<100x/\log^2 x$ for $x>x_0$, see the last display (37) in the paper. No doubt Brun's method works equally well for the original question above, with $100$ being replaced by an effective constant depending on $D$.

Added 2. J. R. Chen proved in his paper "On Goldbach's problem and the sieve methods" (Sci. Sinica Ser. A 21 (1978), 701-738.) that the number of solutions of $P-P'=h$ in primes $P'<P<x$ is less than $$ 7.8342\times \prod_{p>2}\left(1-\frac{1}{(p-1)^2}\right)\prod_{\substack{p>2\\p\mid h}}\left(1+\frac{1}{p-2}\right)\times\frac{x}{\log^2 x},$$ assuming $x$ is sufficiently large in terms of $k$. I learned this from a paper of Pintz and Ruzsa (Acta Arith. 109 (2003), 169-194.).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure what your "e.g." for "in the same way" means, as wasn't the twin primes upper bound of that form first proven by Brun in 1919/20? $\endgroup$ – GuestPoster Jun 14 '15 at 10:23
  • $\begingroup$ @GuestPoster: Brun's upper bound was off by a factor of $(\log\log x)^2$ or so. At any rate, knowing that there are few twin primes does not imply aprior that there are few quasi-twin primes as well (with distance less than a thousand, say). Nevertheless, the techniques that provide the upper bound in the original post for the twin primes also provide the same kind of upper bound for the quasi-twin primes (with a different constant). I hope this clarifies. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Jun 14 '15 at 10:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, his first paper was off by that log-log power. A later paper even got the explicit constant $C=100$. Le crible d’Eratosthene et le theoreme de Goldbach. Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris, 168 (1919), 544-546 announces it, and Le crible d’Eratosthene et le theoreme de Goldbach. Videnselsk. Skr. 1, No. 3 (1920) gets 100. $\endgroup$ – GuestPoster Jun 14 '15 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ @GuestPoster: I looked up Brun's paper, and you are right about his bound (not losing a loglog power). Let me update my post accordingly. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Jun 14 '15 at 11:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think Chen's result is only valid in the asymptotic regime where $x$ is assumed sufficiently large depending on $h$. $\endgroup$ – Terry Tao Nov 20 '16 at 18:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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