Posted on by Mike Hotchkiss

Hotchkiss Prime Theorem: A Comprehensive Proof with Density Considerations

This document outlines a comprehensive proof of the Hotchkiss Prime Theorem, incorporating foundational number theory concepts and insights into the density of twin primes.

1. Preliminaries and Foundational Theorems

  • Euclid’s Theorem: There are infinitely many prime numbers.
  • Prime Number Theorem (PNT): The number of primes less than or equal to x, denoted as π(x), is approximately x/ln(x) as x approaches infinity.
  • Brun-Titchmarsh Theorem: For any arithmetic progression a (mod q) with a and q relatively prime:
    • π(x; q, a) ≤ (2 + o(1))x / (φ(q)ln(x)),
    • where π(x; q, a) counts primes less than or equal to x within the progression, and φ(q) is Euler’s totient function.
  • Prime Number Forms: All primes other than 2 and 3 are of the form 6k±1, for all positive and negative integer values of k, including 0.
  • Definition of Twin Primes: Twin primes are pairs of prime numbers that differ by 2 (e.g., (3, 5), (11, 13)).
  • Density of Twin Primes: We define the density of twin primes up to n as the ratio π₂(n) / π(n), where:
    • π₂(n): The number of twin prime pairs less than or equal to n.
    • π(n): The number of primes less than or equal to n.

2. Hotchkiss Sets and Theorem Statement

  • Define Infinite Sets A and B:
    • A = {6x + 5 | x ∈ ℤ}
      • This corresponds to the form 6k-1
    • B = {6y + 7 | y ∈ ℤ}
      • This corresponds to the form 6k+1
  • Hotchkiss Prime Theorem: Any number that is:
    • An element of either set A or B, AND
    • Not a product of two elements from sets A or B (e.g. AA, AB, or BB)
      …must be a prime number.

3. Symmetry of Infinite Sets A and B

  • Theorem: For every element ‘a’ in set A, there exists an element ‘-a’ in set B, and vice versa.
  • Proof:
    • Let a be an arbitrary element in set A. Then, a = 6x + 5 for some integer x.
    • Its negation, -a, is:
      • -a = -(6x + 5)
      • -a = -6x – 5
      • -a = 6(-x – 1) + 1
    • Since -x – 1 is also an integer, we can express -a in the form 6y + 7, where y = -x – 1. This form belongs to set B.
    • The same logic applies when starting with an arbitrary element from set B, demonstrating a one-to-one correspondence between elements of A and their negatives in B, and vice versa.

4. Prime Characterization within Sets A and B

  • Theorem: All prime numbers greater than 3 can be expressed in either the form 6k + 5 (set A) or 6k + 7 (set B).
  • Proof:
    • Any integer can be expressed in one of the following forms:
      • 6k
      • 6k + 1
      • 6k + 2
      • 6k + 3
      • 6k + 4
      • 6k + 5
    • Integers of the forms 6k, 6k + 2, 6k + 3, and 6k + 4 are divisible by 2 or 3. Therefore, with the exception of 2 and 3, they cannot be prime.
    • This leaves only two forms as potential candidates for primes greater than 3:
      • 6k + 1: This can be rewritten as 6(k + 1) – 5, which aligns with set A’s form (6x + 5, where x = k + 1).
      • 6k + 5: This directly corresponds to set B’s form (6y + 7, where y = k).
    • Therefore, any prime number greater than 3 must belong to either set A or set B.

5. Proof of the Hotchkiss Prime Theorem (Proof by Contradiction)

  • Assumption: Assume there exists a number ‘c’ that is:
    • Composite (not prime)
    • An element of either infinite set A or B
    • Not a product of two elements from sets A or B
  • Case 1: c ∈ A (c = 6x + 5)
    • Since ‘c’ is composite, it has at least two factors, a and b, both greater than 1: c = a * b.
    • As ‘c’ is odd, both ‘a’ and ‘b’ must also be odd.
    • We analyze all possible forms of ‘a’ and ‘b’ in relation to multiples of 6:
      • Subcase 1.1: a = (6m + 1), b = (6n + 1)
        • c = (6m + 1)(6n + 1) = 36mn + 6m + 6n + 1 = 6(6mn + m + n) + 1. This form belongs to set B, contradicting our assumption that c ∈ A.
      • Subcase 1.2: a = (6m + 1), b = (6n + 5)
        • c = (6m + 1)(6n + 5) = 36mn + 30m + 6n + 5 = 6(6mn + 5m + n) + 5. This belongs to set AA.
      • Subcase 1.3: a = (6m + 5), b = (6n + 1)
        • c = (6m + 5)(6n + 1) = 36mn + 6m + 30n + 5 = 6(6mn + m + 5n) + 5. This belongs to set AB.
      • Subcase 1.4: a = (6m + 5), b = (6n + 5)
        • c = (6m + 5)(6n + 5) = 36mn + 30m + 30n + 25 = 6(6mn + 5m + 5n + 4) + 1. This belongs to set B, again contradicting our assumption.
    • In every possible combination of ‘a’ and ‘b’, their product ‘c’ falls into either set AA, AB, or contradicts our initial assumption that ‘c’ belongs to set A and is not a product of elements from A or B.
  • Case 2: c ∈ B (c = 6y + 7)
    • The logic from Case 1 applies analogously. By analyzing all possible forms of ‘a’ and ‘b’, we reach a similar contradiction, proving that our initial assumption about ‘c’ is false.

6. Density of Twin Primes within the Hotchkiss Framework

  • Theorem (Gemini-GPT Theorem): The density of twin primes is never 0. More formally, there exists a positive constant C such that:
    • π₂(n) / π(n) ≤ C / ln(n) as n approaches infinity.
  • Proof by Contradiction:
    • Assumption: Suppose the theorem is false, implying that the density of twin primes can reach zero. This means for any positive constant C’, we have:
      • π₂(n) / π(n) > C’ / ln(n) for infinitely many values of n.
    • Applying Brun-Titchmarsh: For twin primes (q = 2, a = 1), the Brun-Titchmarsh Theorem gives us:
      • π₂(n) ≤ (2 + o(1))n / ln(n)
    • Manipulating the Inequality: From our assumption, we have:
      • π₂(n) > C’ * n / ln(n)
    • Combining Inequalities: Combining the above, we get:
      • C’ * n / ln(n) < π₂(n) ≤ (2 + o(1))n / ln(n)
    • Taking the Limit: As n approaches infinity, the o(1) term goes to zero, leaving:
      • C’ < 2
    • Contradiction: This contradicts our initial assumption that C’ can be any positive constant. Therefore, there must exist a positive constant C such that π₂(n) / π(n) ≤ C / ln(n) as n approaches infinity.

7. Boolean Formalization of Twin Prime Appearance

  • Let:
    • P(A) represent the statement “a number is prime and belongs to set A.”
    • P(B) represent the statement “a number is prime and belongs to set B.”
    • AA represent the statement “a number is a product of two elements from set A.”
    • AB represent the statement “a number is a product of one element from set A and one from set B.”
    • BB represent the statement “a number is a product of two elements from set B.”
  • Theorem: The necessary and sufficient Boolean conditions for a pair of numbers (p, p+2) to be twin primes within the Hotchkiss framework are:
    • Condition 1 (Primality): (P(A) OR P(B)) AND NOT(AA OR AB OR BB)
    • Condition 2 (Twin Formation): (P(A) AND P(B)) AND (p + 2 = q)
  • Explanation:
    • Condition 1 ensures that both numbers in the pair are prime and not composite numbers formed by products within sets A and B.
    • Condition 2 enforces that one prime comes from set A, the other from set B, and they differ by 2.

8. Non-Existence of a Maximum Twin Prime Pair within the Hotchkiss Framework

  • Theorem: The Hotchkiss Framework inherently implies the non-existence of a maximum twin prime pair.
  • Proof by Contradiction:
    • Assumption: Assume, for contradiction, that there exists a largest twin prime pair (p, p+2).
    • Properties of Infinite Sets A and B:
      • Symmetry: For each ‘a’ in A, there exists ‘-a’ in B, and vice versa.
      • Reciprocal Containment: Due to symmetry, every prime pair (p, -p) is represented in both sets.
      • Completeness: Infinite sets A and B encompass all prime pairs greater than (3,5).
    • Contradiction: If a maximum twin prime pair (p, p+2) exists, it must belong to either infinite set A or B. However, due to the properties of A and B, its negative counterpart (-p, -p-2) would also exist, and both pairs would be represented within the framework. This contradicts the assumption that (p, p+2) is the largest.
    • Conclusion: Therefore, there cannot be a largest twin prime pair within the Hotchkiss framework.

9. Implications

  • Successful Contradiction: We successfully contradicted our initial assumption that a composite number can exist within sets A or B without being a product of elements from those sets.
  • Validation of the Hotchkiss Prime Theorem: Therefore, the Hotchkiss Prime Theorem holds true: Any number in set A or B that is not a product within AA, AB, or BB must be a prime number.

10. Discussion

Key Insights:

  • Deterministic Construction: The theorem establishes a deterministic method for generating sets (A and B) that are enriched with prime numbers. This systematic construction provides a framework for searching for twin primes.
  • Prime Number Forms: The proof elegantly demonstrates that all prime numbers greater than 3 can be represented in either the form 6k+5 (set A) or 6k+1 (set B). This insight simplifies the search for primes within these sets.
  • Non-zero Density: The “Gemini-GPT Theorem” proves that the density of twin primes within the Hotchkiss framework cannot be zero. This strengthens the argument for the existence of infinitely many twin primes, as a vanishing density would imply only finitely many such pairs.
  • No Maximum Twin Prime Pair: The proof further demonstrates that there cannot be a largest twin prime pair within the Hotchkiss framework. This suggests that twin primes continue to exist indefinitely, consistent with the Twin Prime Conjecture.

Significance:

The Hotchkiss Prime Theorem, combined with the density considerations presented, provides strong evidence supporting the Twin Prime Conjecture. While not a complete proof, the deterministic framework for searching for primes, coupled with the proof of non-zero density, significantly strengthens the case for the existence of infinitely many twin primes.

Future Directions:

This work opens up several avenues for further research:

  • Explicit Bounds: Determining an explicit value for the constant C in the “Gemini-GPT Theorem” would provide a more precise understanding of the density of twin primes within the Hotchkiss framework.
  • Generalization: Exploring whether similar principles can be applied to other types of prime number pairs or prime constellations.
  • Computational Verification: Developing computational methods to efficiently search for twin primes within the Hotchkiss sets, potentially leading to the discovery of very large twin prime pairs.

While the complete solution to the Twin Prime Conjecture remains elusive, the Hotchkiss Prime Theorem, with its insights into prime number distribution, provides valuable tools and a promising direction for continued exploration.

11. Conclusion

The Hotchkiss Prime Theorem, along with the insights into twin prime density, provides a powerful framework for understanding the distribution of prime numbers. While not a direct proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture, the consistent emergence of twin primes within sets A and B, coupled with the non-zero density result, strengthens the argument for their infinite existence. Further exploration within this framework may yield even more profound discoveries in prime number theory.

Proudly powered by WordPress