Advances in Pure Mathematics
Vol.4 No.5(2014), Article ID:45613,14 pages DOI:10.4236/apm.2014.45021
A Comparison of Sufficiency Condtions for the Goldbach and the Twin Primes Conjectures
C. J. Mozzochi
Princeton, NJ, USA
Email: cjm@ix.netcom.com
Copyright © 2014 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Received 6 February 2014; revised 6 March 2014; accepted 15 March 2014
ABSTRACT
It is generally known that under the generalized Riemann hypothesis one could establish the twin primes conjecture by the circle method, provided one could obtain the estimate for the integral of the representation function over the minor arcs. One of the new results here is that the assumption of
can be removed. We compare this and other such sufficiency results with similar results for the Goldbach conjecture.
Keywords:Goldbach Conjecture, Twin Primes Conjecture, Circle Method, Generalized Riemann Hypothesis
1. Introduction
Let and
for
. Let
rapidly. When
and
let denote the closed interval
, a so-called major arc.
It is easily shown, for any choice of, that all the
are disjoint and contained in the closed interval
.
For each let
be those points in
which are not in any closed neighborhood (major arc)
of radius about any rational number
, where
and
.
For each let
be those points in
which are not in any closed neighborhood (major arc)
of radius about any rational number
, where
and
.
Let denote the number of ways
(even) can be represented as a sum of two primes.
Let denote the number of twin primes less than or equal to
.
In [1] the following two theorems are established:
Theorem 1.1 Under the generalized Riemann hypothesis with and
if
, then
for all even
.
Theorem 1.2 Let and
if
, then
for all even
.
In [2] the following two theorems are established:
Theorem 1.3 Under the assumption that Siegel zeros do not exist with and
if
then
for all even
.
Theorem 1.4 Let and
. If
, then
for all even
.
The proof of Theorem 1.3 and, in particular, the proof of Theorem 1.4 is very complicated.
In Section 6 of [2] it is shown, by a very complicated argument, that a particularly natural approach for eliminating the condition in Theorem 1.2 does not work.
As we will now see, the situation with regard to the twin prime conjecture is significantly, very less complicated. The reason is primarily because we only need to consider the Ramanujan sums rather than the sums
, which appear in all of the theorems above, related to the Goldbach conjecture.
In Section 2 we will establish Theorem 1.5 Let and
.
if
as
goes to infinity in some suitable sequence.
2. A Proof of Theorem 1.5
We decompose the above integral
It is immediate by the prime numbers theorem that
By definition
where
Lemma 2.1 Let and
. Then
This is Theorem 58 in [3] .
Lemma 2.2 Under the hypothesis of Lemma 2.1 we have
Proof. This follows immediately from Lemma 2.1 and the trivial inequalities and
and the fact that if
and
, then
.
Hence it is immediate that
By the change of variable we have
However, by (2.1) we have
Let so that if
then
Let with the condition of summation
and
.
It is easy to see that
For we have
Hence for and
so that for some fixed we have:
But and by definition
so that it follows immediately that
Now summing over all we have
since by Theorem 327 page 267 in [3]
Hence
where. Now let
Lemma 2.3
Proof. [4] page 211.
It is immediate by Lemma 2.3 that
What remains to be done is to show is bounded away from 0.
Let
Since and
are all multiplicative functions of
,
is a multiplicative function of
. Also, by means of the trivial estimate on
, namely 2, and a direct application of Theorem 327 page 267 in [5] we have
so that by Theorem 2 [3] page 3 we have
Hence
3. A Primitive Formulation of the Circle Method
1) Part I
We assume (even)
.
For each let
.
Let be the number of representations of
as the sum of two primes, each of which is less than
.
Clearly,
We decompose this integral
where
Clearly, by Theorem 55 in [3] and the last paragraph on page 63 in [3] we have
By direct application of the easily established Equation (151) in [3]
(3.0)
and the Equation (204) in [3]
(3.1)
We have for
(3.2)
By the trivial inequalities and
and the fact that if
and
, then
with
and
, we have for
(3.3)
By the change of variable, we have
so that
(3.4)
Clearly
Also, the number of terms on the right hand side of (3.4) is and each term is greater than
and less than 1 so that
Hence by definition of and Abel's lemma we have
so that
(3.5)
Hence,
(3.6)
Let. Then
so that
so that we have
Remark. Unfortunately, the integral cannot be
; since for almost all
, the integral is asymptotically
where
is the usual singular series.
We assume. For each
let
.
Let be the number of twin primes, each of which is less than
.
Clearly,
We decompose this integral
where
where
Immediately, from (3.3) we have
By the change of variable, we have
so that
Let
Let
(3.7)
Clearly,
Also, the number of terms on the right hand side of (3.7) is and each term is greater than
and less than 1 so that
Hence by definition of and Abel’s lemma we have
so that
(3.8)
Hence
(3.9)
Let Then
;
so that
so that we have as
goes to infinity in some suitable sequence.
2) Part II
For each (even) let
be a prime in
Let
be those points in
which are not in
and not in any closed interval of radius
about any rational number
where
.
Let be the number of representations of
as the sum of two primes, which are limited to those primes in the
arithmetic progressions mod
.
Clearly,
We decompose this integral
where
Conjecture 1.
We now estimate.
But consider
so that uniformly
Hence for uniformly
So by (100) and (101) for
But since and since
, we have by the inequalities immediately below (3.2) for
But
Hence for
(3.10)
By a change of variable we have
However,
Let
Hence, if,
By (3.5) we have
and
But
Hence, if,
so that
where
But by (3.6) we have
so that
so that
Let
By Theorem 272 in [5]
so that, since we assume
.
Hence
so that if Conjecture 1 is true.
Let be the number of twin primes, each of which is in one of the arithmetic progressions mod
defined above.
Clearly,
We decompose the integral
Conjecture 2.
infinity in some suitable sequence.
From (3.10) we have for
By change of variable we have
However,
Let
Hence, if
Clearly,
So that by (3.8)
and.
Hence, if,
so that
where
But by (3.6)
so that
Hence
Hence
so that if Conjecture 2 is true, as
goes to infinity in a sequence that satisfies the conjecture.
4. Some Heuristics
Theorem 4.1 If
then every sufficiently large even integer is the sum of two primes, where is an exceptional set, whose measure goes to 0 with
.
Proof. This is established in [1] .
Theorem 4.2 Let be an arbitrary fixed integer. Then
uniformly for almost all.
Proof. This deep result is immediate by (5-2) in [6] .
There is no compelling reason to assume Theorem 4.2 is not true for.
It is worthwile to investigate if Carleson’s proof can be modified to establish Theorem 4.2 with replaced with
and
replaced with
.
In [7] Tao presents a heuristic argument to establish that the major arc contribution in the circle method is
. He states that his argument can be made rigorous.
However, it follows from the proof of Theorem 1.5 that the major arc contribution is not in any sequence of
.
But it is well known that so that the contribution of the minor arc in the circle method approach to the twin primes conjecture (Theorem 1.5) is
, which makes plausible that the required estimate of
might be true.
It is plausible that in Theorem 1.3
where the latter integral is that of Theorem 1.5, which makes plausible that the required estimate of might be true.
Those, who seriously attempt Conjecture 2 have the advantage that there is some degree of freedom in the choice of and in the choice of
for each
; and the
estimate is required only as
goes to infinity in some suitable sequence.
Acknowledgements
I thank R. C. Vaughan for the Remark in Part I, Section 3.
References
- Mozzochi, C.J. and Balasubramanian, R. (1978) Some Comments on Goldbach’s Conjecture. Report No. 11, MittagLeffler Institute.
- Balasubramanian, R. and Mozzochi, C.J. (1983) Siegel Zeros and the Goldbach Problem. Journal of Number Theory, 16, 311-332.
- Estermann, T. (1961) Introduction to Modern Prime Number Theory. Cambridge Univ. Press, London/New York.
- Montgomery, H.L. and Vaughan, R.C. (1973) Error Terms in Additive Prime Number Theory. Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, 24, 207-216.
- Hardy, G.H. and Wright, E.M. (1965) An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers. 4th Edition, Oxford University Press, London/New York.
- Carleson, L. (1966-1967) Sur la convergence et l'order des gradeur des somes partielles des series de Fourier. Marseille Notes.
- Tao, T. (2012) Heuristic Limitations of the Circle Method. Blog Post 20 May 2012, 1-11.