3
$\begingroup$

Let $n\geq2$. Are there sets $A, B \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ such that $|A|=|B|=n$ and all numbers in $A+B$ are primes? A well-known conjecture is that there are infinite set $A$ and finite set $|B|=n$ such that all numbers in $A+B$ are primes.

Are there infinite sets $A, B \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ such that all numbers in $A+B$ are primes? I conjecture that the sets do not exist. Someone told me this question seems to be open.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Doesn’t Maynard’s paper on prime gaps imply there exists an infinite set $A$ and finite set $B$ with $|B|=n$ such that $A+B$ only contains primes? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 10:45
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Why do you conjecture that the infinite sets do not exist when you have been told that the question is open? A research-level conjecture ought to be backed up by some research. $\endgroup$
    – user44143
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 13:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the introductory question about finite $n$, the answer is yes because the primes contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. $\endgroup$
    – user44143
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 13:35

1 Answer 1

11
$\begingroup$

Yes, conditional on the Hardy-Littlewood prime tuples conjecture.

Let $A$ and $B$ be two finite sets such that $A +B$ consists of primes, and such that for all primes $p$, there are residue classes $x_p$ and $y_p$ mod $p$ with $x_p+y_p \neq 0 \mod p$ such that $A$ does not contain any numbers congruent to $x_p$ mod $p$ and $B$ does not contain any numbers congruent to $y_p$ mod $p$.

Conditionally on the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture, it is possible to add one new element to $A$ or $B$, whichever you prefer, while preserving all these properties.

Given this, the existence of infinite $A$, $B$ follows by starting with the empty set, adding an element to $A$, then an element to $B$, then an element to $A$, then an element to $B$, etc. So it suffices to prove this step.

Without loss of generality, we may assume that we are trying to increase $B$.

First, enlarge $A$ to a set $\overline{A}$ such that $\overline{A}$ still does not contain any numbers congruent to $x_p$ mod $p$, and, in addition, for all $p< |B|+3$, $\overline{A}$ contains all residue classes modulo $p$ except $x_p$. This is easy to do with the Chinese remainder theorem (and may require adjusting $x_p$ for $p$ large).

Then $\overline{A}$ is an admissible tuple so, by the Hardy-Littlewood prime tuples conjecture, there is some large $z$ such that $a +z$ is prime for all $a\in \overline{A}$.

Setting $B' = B \cup \{z\}$, we can see that $A = B'$ consists of primes. For each prime $p$, if $p \geq |B|+3$ then there are at least $2$ choices of residue class $y_p$ such that $B'$ does not contain any numbers congruent to $y_p$ mod $p$, so at least $1$ such class satisfying $x_p +y_p \neq 0$ mod $p$. If $p < |B|+3$ then, taking $z$ to be sufficiently large, for every $a\in \overline{A}$, $a + z$ is not $p$ and thus, because it is prime, is not a multiple of $p$. Thus, by assumption on $\overline{A}$, $z$ is congruent to $-x_p$ mod $p$. So for $p <|B|+3$, the same $y_p$ works for $B'$ as worked for $B$.

So indeed $A,B'$ satisfy all the conditions, completing the induction step.


This implication was earlier established by Andrew Granville in A Note on Sums of Primes.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LMP The answer to your last question is "Yes, and that is elementary". You can show more: if a set $P$ does not contain a "recursive interval" $I(N;n_1,\dots,n_m)=\{N+\sum_k\delta_kn_k:\delta_k\in\{0,1\}\}$, then $|P\cap[1,M]|\le C_mM^{q_m}$ with some $q_m<1$, so the primes are just too many. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Nov 18, 2021 at 6:37
  • $\begingroup$ i@LMP In addition to what fedja said, even the case $|A|= \infty$, $|B|=n$ is known unconditionally by work of Maynard, as Zach Hunter pointed out. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Nov 18, 2021 at 13:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How does this relate to the recent preprint of Tao and Ziegler: arxiv.org/abs/2301.10303 ? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 28, 2023 at 13:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @SamHopkins The relation is described in that preprint by the sentences: "We remark that it was previously shown in [8] that Conjecture 1.2 implied that the primes contained the sumset A + B of two infinite [sets] A, B; Theorem 1.3 provides a new proof of this claim." They could have cited this MO answer instead of the reference [8] (but shouldn't have, as [8] was much earlier.) So the relation is that one of their theorems implies the result of this answer, and another of their theorems is separate. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Jan 28, 2023 at 16:17

You must log in to answer this question.

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