Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Statement

Here C∞C_\infty is the unique infinite component of R={(m,n)∈Z2:gcd⁡(m,n)=1}\mathcal R=\{(m,n)\in\mathbf Z^2:\gcd(m,n)=1\} under distance-1 adjacency (Proposition 3.1).

Lemma 7.1 (p. 58). The following sets lie in C∞C_\infty:

  1. {(m,1):m>0}\{(m,1):m>0\};
  2. {(p,n):p>n}\{(p,n):p>n\} for each prime pp;
  3. {(m,q):q<m<(q/2)20/11, q∤m}\{(m,q):q<m<(q/2)^{20/11},\ q\nmid m\} for each prime qq.

The sets are printed as above, with no lower bound on nn in the second. The proof refers that set to the proof of Proposition 3.1, which treats {(p,n):1≤n≤p−1}\{(p,n):1\le n\le p-1\}.

Proof pointer

p. 58. Parts 1 and 2 are the observations in the proof of Proposition 3.1 (p. 50). For part 3, the range gives q>2m11/20q>2m^{11/20}. So if q∤mq\nmid m, one of the intervals [m,m+m11/20][m,m+m^{11/20}] and [m−m11/20,m][m-m^{11/20},m] contains no multiple of qq, and the horizontal segment at height qq over it lies in R\mathcal R. By the Heath-Brown--Iwaniec theorem that every interval of length y11/20y^{11/20} contains a prime, that segment crosses a prime column, which is in C∞C_\infty by part 2.

Read depth

Claims checked: the statement and proof were read clause by clause on p. 58 of the edition named on the source card. Nothing here is independently reviewed.

Dependencies

  • Proposition 3.1 (p. 50), for parts 1 and 2.
  • D. R. Heath-Brown and H. Iwaniec, On the difference between consecutive primes, Invent. Math. 55 (1979), 49--69, the paper's reference [34], for primes in every interval of length y11/20y^{11/20}.

Source. Ilan Vardi, "Deterministic Percolation," Communications in Mathematical Physics 207 (1999), 43--66, DOI 10.1007/s002200050717, the edition read for the source card.

Bears on

  • Problem 1212: the lemma places in the infinite component of the problem's graph, taken over all of Z2\mathbf Z^2, a line with a coordinate 11, segments with a prime first coordinate and segments with a prime second coordinate. The paper does not consider paths that avoid coordinate 11 or pairs of primes, so the lemma does not address the problem's question.