Bounded Gaps Between Primes
Posted by Tom Leinster
Guest post by Emily Riehl
Whether we grow up to become category theorists or applied mathematicians, one thing that I suspect unites us all is that we were once enchanted by prime numbers. It comes as no surprise then that a seminar given yesterday afternoon at Harvard by Yitang Zhang of the University of New Hampshire reporting on his new paper “Bounded gaps between primes” attracted a diverse audience. I don’t believe the paper is publicly available yet, but word on the street is that the referees at the Annals say it all checks out.
What follows is a summary of his presentation. Any errors should be ascribed to the ignorance of the transcriber (a category theorist, not an analytic number theorist) rather than to the author or his talk, which was lovely.
Prime gaps
Let us write for the primes in increasing cardinal order. We know of course that this list is countably infinite. A prime gap is an integer . The Prime Number Theorem tells us that is approximately as approaches infinity.
The twin primes conjecture, on the other hand asserts that
i.e., that there are infinitely many pairs of twin primes for which the prime gap is just two. A generalization, attributed to Alphonse de Polignac, states that for any positive even integer, there are infinitely many prime gaps of that size. This conjecture has been neither proven nor disproven in any case. These conjectures are related to the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture about the distribution of prime constellations.
The strategy
The basic question is whether there exists some constant so that infinitely often. Now, for the first time, we know that the answer is yes…when .
Here is the basic proof strategy, supposedly familiar in analytic number theory. A subset of distinct natural numbers is admissible if for all primes the number of distinct residue classes modulo occupied by these numbers is less than . (For instance, taking , we see that the gaps between the must all be even.) If this condition were not satisfied, then it would not be possible for each element in a collection to be prime. Conversely, the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture contains the statement that for every admissible , there are infinitely many so that every element of the set is prime.
Let denote the function that is when is prime and 0 otherwise. Fixing a large integer , let us write to mean ≤ . Suppose we have a positive real valued function —to be specified later—and consider two sums:
Then if for some function it follows that for some (for any sufficiently large) which means that at least two terms in this sum are non-zero, i.e., that there are two indices and so that and are both prime. In this way we can identify bounded prime gaps.
Some details
The trick is to find an appropriate function . Previous work of Daniel Goldston, János Pintz, and Cem Yildirim suggests define where
where and is a power of .
Now think of the sum as a main term plus an error term. Taking with , the main term is negative, which won’t do. When the main term is okay but the question remains how to bound the error term.
Zhang’s work
Zhang’s idea is related to work of Enrico Bombieri, John Friedlander, and Henryk Iwaniec. Let where (which is “small but bigger than ”). Then define using the same formula as before but with an additional condition on the index , namely that divides the product of the primes less that . In other words, we only sum over square-free with small prime factors.
The point is that when is not too small (say ) then has lots of factors. If and there is some so that and . This gives a factorization with which we can use to break the sum over into two sums (over and over ) which are then handled using techniques whose names I didn’t recognize.
On the size of the bound
You might be wondering where the number 70 million comes from. This is related to the in the admissible set. (My notes say but maybe it should be .) The point is that needs to be large enough so that the change brought about by the extra condition that is square free with small prime factors is negligible. But Zhang believes that his techniques have not yet been optimized and that smaller bounds will soon be possible.
Re: Bounded Gaps Between Primes
Nice summary!
Of course, it’s better to say is on average as approaches infinity.
By the way, in 2004, Daniel Goldston, János Pintz and Cem Yıldırım were able to show that there are infinitely many pairs of primes at most 16 apart… if something called the Elliott–Halberstam conjecture is true.
This is a really nice expository article about the whole issue:
• K. Soundararajan, Small gaps between prime numbers: the work of Goldston-Pintz-Yıldırım.