Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Statement

Setting (p. 1122). H={h1,h2,…,hk0}\mathcal H=\{h_1,h_2,\ldots,h_{k_0}\} is a set of distinct nonnegative integers. For a prime pp, νp(H)\nu_p(\mathcal H) is the number of distinct residue classes modulo pp occupied by the hih_i, and H\mathcal H is admissible when νp(H)<p\nu_p(\mathcal H)<p for every prime pp. As usual pnp_n is the nn-th prime.

Theorem 1 (p. 1122). If H\mathcal H is admissible and k0≥3.5×106k_0\ge3.5\times10^6, then there are infinitely many positive integers nn for which the k0k_0-tuple

{n+h1, n+h2, …, n+hk0}\{n+h_1,\ n+h_2,\ \ldots,\ n+h_{k_0}\}

contains at least two primes. Consequently

lim inf⁡n→∞(pn+1−pn)<7×107.(1.5)\liminf_{n\to\infty}(p_{n+1}-p_n)<7\times10^7. \tag{1.5}

The paper derives (1.5) on p. 1122 by taking H\mathcal H to consist of k0k_0 distinct primes each greater than k0k_0, which is admissible, and using π(7×107)−π(3.5×106)>3.5×106\pi(7\times10^7)-\pi(3.5\times10^6)>3.5\times10^6. In words: there are at least 3.5×1063.5\times10^6 primes in (3.5×106,7×107](3.5\times10^6,7\times10^7], so such an H\mathcal H fits inside an interval of length less than 7×1077\times10^7, and two primes in one translate differ by less than that.

On p. 1123 the paper says the bound in (1.5) is not optimal, that the condition k0≥3.5×106k_0\ge3.5\times10^6 is crude and can be relaxed in certain ways, and that making the right side of (1.5) as small as possible is an open problem it does not discuss.

Source. Yitang Zhang, Bounded gaps between primes, Ann. of Math. (2) 179 (2014), no. 3, 1121--1174, DOI 10.4007/annals.2014.179.3.7, read in the journal's edition identified on the source card: Theorem 1 and (1.5) on p. 1122, the remark on optimality on p. 1123, the deduction of Theorem 1 from Theorem 2 in Sections 2, 4 and 5 (pp. 1123--1143).

Read depth. Claims checked: the setting, the statement, and the deduction of (1.5) were read clause by clause on the journal's pages. The proof was not checked step by step, and nothing here is independently reviewed.

Proof pointer

The argument follows Goldston, Pintz and Yildirim (Section 2, pp. 1123--1127). It suffices to treat k0=3.5×106k_0=3.5\times10^6, and the paper fixes D=x1/4+ϖD=x^{1/4+\varpi} with ϖ=1/1168\varpi=1/1168 and l0=180l_0=180 (pp. 1125--1126). With θ(n)=log⁡n\theta(n)=\log n on primes and 00 otherwise, and the sieve weight λ(n)\lambda(n) of (2.11), a Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim weight restricted to divisors d<Dd<D of ∏j(n+hj)\prod_j(n+h_j) free of primes ≥xϖ\ge x^{\varpi}, it compares

S1=∑x≤n<2xλ(n)2,S2=∑x≤n<2x(∑i=1k0θ(n+hi))λ(n)2.S_1=\sum_{x\le n<2x}\lambda(n)^2,\qquad S_2=\sum_{x\le n<2x}\Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{k_0}\theta(n+h_i)\Bigr)\lambda(n)^2 .

If every translate n+Hn+\mathcal H with x≤n<2xx\le n<2x held at most one prime, the inner sum would be below log⁡3x\log 3x for large xx, and S2≤(log⁡3x)S1S_2\le(\log 3x)S_1. So S2−(log⁡3x)S1>0S_2-(\log 3x)S_1>0 (the paper's (2.3)) for all large xx gives such an nn in every dyadic range [x,2x)[x,2x) with xx large, hence infinitely many. Section 4 (pp. 1135--1141) bounds S1S_1 above (4.20); Section 5 (pp. 1141--1143) bounds S2S_2 below (5.6), using Theorem 2 to control the error terms in the distribution of primes to smooth moduli. The two bounds give (5.7) with an explicit constant ω\omega, and the numerical check (5.8) that ω>0\omega>0 (p. 1143) yields (2.3).

Depends on. Theorem 2 (p. 1126) and the lemmas of Section 3 (pp. 1127--1135).

Bears on

  • Problem 15: the theorem says nothing about the convergence of ∑(−1)nn/pn\sum(-1)^nn/p_n, the problem's question. The problem page records, as a site remark the site credits to Weisenberg, that the companion series ∑(−1)n/(pn+1−pn)\sum(-1)^n/(p_{n+1}-p_n) diverges; (1.5) gives this, since infinitely many of its terms have absolute value greater than 1/(7×107)1/(7\times10^7), so its terms do not tend to 00.