mersenneforum.org > Math 2nd Hardy-Littlewood conjecture
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2020-10-22, 14:07 #1 R2357   "Ruben" Oct 2020 Nederland 2×19 Posts 2nd Hardy-Littlewood conjecture Hello, I've looked at the way primes behave in sequences which have a primorial length and, as I mentionned a few weeks ago, I came across the 2nd Hardy-Littlewood conjecture, which was expained to me as being incompatible with the first Hardy-Littlewood conjecture. What I don't understand is why do we believe that it's the first one which is right, personnaly, I believe it's the second, here's why I think so : The second Hardy-Littlewood conjecture states that with x>1, pi(x)>=pi(x+y)-pi(y). That seems to me as very probable! Already, the first sequence of 30 contains 10 primes, none of the others will contain more than 7. Why would this conjecture seem to be false?
2020-10-22, 14:32   #2
CRGreathouse

Aug 2006

3·1,993 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R2357 The second Hardy-Littlewood conjecture states that with x>1, pi(x)>=pi(x+y)-pi(y). That seems to me as very probable! Already, the first sequence of 30 contains 10 primes, none of the others will contain more than 7.
That case is certain: you can't fit that many primes into a run of 30 except at the beginning. But there are higher cases where the first conjecture says there is a really tight configuration, so tight that you could fit in even more primes than at the beginning. These configurations are known -- the only question is whether there are examples of them appearing 'in the wild', as it were. But I certainly expect that they do appear, in fact infinitely often. The trouble is that you'd expect them to be fairly sparse and thus hard to find, and so it's not surprising we haven't found any so far.

2020-10-22, 15:34   #3
Dr Sardonicus

Feb 2017
Nowhere

2·3·23·37 Posts

K-TUPLE Permissible Patterns
Quote:
 This conjecture fails if the k-tuple conjecture is true with a value of y = 3159. An admissible k-tuple of 447 primes can be created in an interval of 3159 integers, while π(3159) = 446. Exhaustive searching has verified the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture is true for intervals up to 2529. Exhaustive searching has identified all maximum density k-tuple patterns in intervals of 3 to 2331.

2020-10-22, 15:54   #4
bsquared

"Ben"
Feb 2007

3×1,193 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus K-TUPLE Permissible Patterns
Maybe I'm not understanding something... how can the search be exhaustive if x is unbounded?

2020-10-22, 16:14   #5
axn

Jun 2003

5,179 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bsquared Maybe I'm not understanding something... how can the search be exhaustive if x is unbounded?
They're searching for permissible patterns, not actual occurrences of any pattern.

2020-10-22, 16:16   #6
bsquared

"Ben"
Feb 2007

3×1,193 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by axn They're searching for permissible patterns, not actual occurrences of any pattern.
Ah, ok thanks.

2020-10-22, 16:35   #7
R2357

"Ruben"
Oct 2020
Nederland

468 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CRGreathouse That case is certain: you can't fit that many primes into a run of 30 except at the beginning. But there are higher cases where the first conjecture says there is a really tight configuration, so tight that you could fit in even more primes than at the beginning. These configurations are known -- the only question is whether there are examples of them appearing 'in the wild', as it were. But I certainly expect that they do appear, in fact infinitely often. The trouble is that you'd expect them to be fairly sparse and thus hard to find, and so it's not surprising we haven't found any so far.
But the region where they are searching is over 10^174, so, if we want to find within a sequence of 3159, 447 prime numbers, that means that the interval, this high, must contain even less composite numbers than in the first 3159, this seems really unlikely.

2020-10-22, 17:06   #8
CRGreathouse

Aug 2006

135338 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R2357 But the region where they are searching is over 10^174, so, if we want to find within a sequence of 3159, 447 prime numbers, that means that the interval, this high, must contain even less composite numbers than in the first 3159, this seems really unlikely.
It's like looking for twin primes: sure, if you look really high they're rare, but no one doubts that there are plenty of them, even though they're really close together.

2020-10-22, 19:22   #9
mart_r

Dec 2008
you know...around...

5·137 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R2357 What I don't understand is why do we believe that it's the first one which is right, personnaly, I believe it's the second, here's why I think so : The second Hardy-Littlewood conjecture states that with x>1, pi(x)>=pi(x+y)-pi(y). That seems to me as very probable! Already, the first sequence of 30 contains 10 primes, none of the others will contain more than 7.
That's merely the fallacy by looking at small numbers only. You probably have seen the calculations that the first example is expected in the vicinity of 101198. With current methods, there's really no hope of ever actually finding a 447-tuplet (or any larger tuplet where there are more primes in an interval than at the beginning of the number line). But every empirical study and all data available so far is in favor of Hardy-Littlewoods first conjecture, so one can assume that these super-dense patterns do exist. And, for any fixed p, one can calculate patterns of these 447-tuplets without a prime factor < p. (In fact, I have done so a few years ago, with p > 1327.)

For comparison: Five years ago, the first large 21-tuplet was found. We don't yet know about a 24-tuplet in the range of p+[0...100], but I hope that I live long enough to witness the discovery of a 24-tuplet.

But I mainly wanted to point out a similar case in prime number theory: if you look at the function Li(x)-pi(x) (Li(x) being the logarithmic integral), even for the largest values of x for which the exact value of pi(x) is known, hardly anyone would expect that it ever produces negative numbers. Yet it is known that Li(x) < pi(x) for some values around x=1.4*10316, and in fact there are infinitely many such instances where Li(x) < pi(x).

Last fiddled with by mart_r on 2020-10-22 at 19:29 Reason: "the exact value of"

2020-10-23, 00:26   #10
Dr Sardonicus

Feb 2017
Nowhere

2×3×23×37 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mart_r But I mainly wanted to point out a similar case in prime number theory: if you look at the function Li(x)-pi(x) (Li(x) being the logarithmic integral), even for the largest values of x for which the exact value of pi(x) is known, hardly anyone would expect that it ever produces negative numbers. Yet it is known that Li(x) < pi(x) for some values around x=1.4*10316, and in fact there are infinitely many such instances where Li(x) < pi(x).
Once upon a time, long long ago, I posted a link to a paper discussing this, Prime Number Races.

 2020-10-23, 08:11 #11 R2357   "Ruben" Oct 2020 Nederland 2·19 Posts Sequence of 3159 numbers containing 447 primes Anyway, if there indeed is such a sequence, then the first or the occurrence will have been reached by 32 589 158 477 190 044 730, thus way below the lower band of 10^174.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post didgogns Miscellaneous Math 1 2020-08-05 06:51 MathDoggy Miscellaneous Math 11 2019-04-17 07:05 reddwarf2956 Prime Gap Searches 2 2016-03-01 22:41 CRGreathouse Math 4 2010-07-06 17:47 GP2 Math 2 2003-09-14 04:36

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:18.

Sun Nov 28 02:18:27 UTC 2021 up 127 days, 20:47, 0 users, load averages: 1.95, 1.49, 1.28