20040601, 12:49  #12  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2^{2}·1,877 Posts 
Quote:
long A.P.'s? 

20040601, 12:52  #13 
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48
2×3×293 Posts 
I think so.

20040601, 15:18  #14  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
5×2,351 Posts 
Quote:
Interesting that a key part of the (alleged) proof relies on results from Goldston and Yildirim's recent work on prime gaps  even though their purported proof of a strong result about gaps proved to be fatally flawed, some good still came of it, e.g. by way of the above. 

20040602, 18:32  #15 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
2140_{8} Posts 
I've been looking at Arenstorf's paper  it's not easy going, I've always thought analytic number theory is a tough field, but what impresses me is that the methods seem to be fairly standard ones. I haven't looked at the Turan references, perhaps Arenstorf is applying some sieving methods developed in the 1960's (my progress through the paper is quite slow, actually), but if the proof holds up, what impresses me is the persistance he has shown in putting the whole thing together with classical methods.
If you want some understanding of the WienerIkehara Tauberian theorem used (but not stated) on page 21 of the paper, take a look at "Introduction to Analytic Number Theory" by K. Chandrasekharan (SpringerVerlag, 1968) where this theorem is used to prove the prime number theorem. The statement of the theorem in Chandrasekharan is as follows: Theorem (WienerIkehara). Let A(x) be a nonnegative, nondecreasing function of x, defined for 0<=x< infinity. Let the integral (from zero to infinity) of A(x)*e^(xs) dx, s=sigma+it, converge for sigma>1 to the function f(s). Let f(s) be analytic for sigma>=1, except for a simple pole at s=1 with residue 1. Then the limit as x goes to infinity of e^(x)*A(x) is equal to 1. It looks to me like Arensdorf uses this same theorem with x replaced by his u, and the residue and limit are equal to B_2 rather than 1. The proof of this theorem in Chandrasekharan is a real bear! But the application of it in proving the prime number theorem is not hard. Edwards also has a nice description of Tauberian theorems in his book "Riemann's Zeta Function". I'll try to give Arenstorf's paper closer attention after the school term ends in a few days. 
20040602, 19:19  #16  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2^{2}×1,877 Posts 
Quote:
I've been looking at it in detail. AFAIK it is correct. I've been looking closely at the proof that T(s)  B_2/(s1) can be continued to s = 1. From that, the theorem follows immediately from the Tauberian Thm. What is amazing is that the entire proof (if one assumes the Tauberian thm as given) could be done for a 1st year grad course in analytic no. theory. The proof very closely mirrors the proof of PNT and Dirichlet's Thm. Indeed. I have questions whether the T(s) function can be replaced by T(s) = sum( lambda(n^2+1) n^s) [to show infinitely many primes of the form n^2+1) or generalized to any finite linear ktuple.....e.g. L = Lambda T(s) = sum(L(n1)L(n+1)L(n+5) n^s) with a suitable B would show infinitely many prime triples n,n+2, n+6 etc. 

20040604, 14:25  #17 
Sep 2002
Vienna, Austria
3×73 Posts 
What about T(s)=sum(L(2^n1) n^s)?

20040604, 14:47  #18  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2^{2}×1,877 Posts 
Quote:


20040604, 14:48  #19  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
1D54_{16} Posts 
Quote:
The numerators grow too fast when they are nonzero. 

20040606, 03:50  #20 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
2·17·101 Posts 
Anyone know if this proof that there exist prime arithmetic progressions of any length k also proves that there is infinitely many twin primes?
Here it says that the twin prime conjecture is a special case of the kTuple Conjecture: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/kTupleConjecture.html But there is 2 twin prime conjectures: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TwinPrimeConjecture.html and it seems the 2nd is the special case of the kTuple conjecture not the one that says there is infinitely many twin primes. 
20040607, 15:40  #21  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
5·2,351 Posts 
Quote:
Good question. I don't believe it does, because AFAIK the work on progressions doesn't involve restrictions on the size of the gaps between the primes in the progressions  and i'm sure if the authors had been able to extend the proof to a special case such as the twins, they would have done so. But it is certainly to be hoped for that the approach might be able to be extended in such a fashion, even if the infinitude of the twin primes has now been established by other means (assuming no major mistakes in Arenstorf's paper  much of the detail work is beyond me, but the basic approach seems sound, since most of it makes use of existing and already proven mathematical machinery  this doesn't appear to be a case like Wiles' proof of FLT, where he developed so much new machinery that that all had to be checked, as well.) 

20040607, 22:18  #22  
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
2^{5}·5·7 Posts 
Quote:
http://listserv.nodak.edu/scripts/wa...406&L=nmbrthry Just wondered if you had any insights into the questions raised by Tsz Ho Chan. Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Twin Prime Conjecture Proof  Steve One  Miscellaneous Math  53  20190318 00:34 
A proof for the Twin Prime Conjecture  Carl Fischbach  Miscellaneous Math  7  20090624 05:52 
Awesome song on Twin Prime Conjecture.  cipher  Twin Prime Search  0  20090415 12:21 
The Twin Prime Conjecture Song  Templus  Lounge  9  20060314 16:30 
Twin prime conjecture work, notation question  eepiccolo  Math  7  20050604 23:01 