THE TWIN PRIME CONJECTURE

Ricardo G. Barca

Abstract
Consecutive primes which differ only by two are known as twin primes; the function π2 (x) describes the distri-
bution of the twin primes in the set of natural numbers. The twin prime conjecture states that there are infinitely
many primes p such that p + 2 is also prime. At the present time, the knowledge about twin primes comes mostly
from sieve methods. Using a formulation of the sieve of Eratosthenes supported on a sequence of k-tuples of re-
mainders we obtain a lower bound for the number of twin primes in [1, x]. Thus, we prove that π2 (x) → ∞ as
x → ∞.

1 Introduction
The twin prime conjecture is one of the problems in number theory that still remains without resolution. Twin prime
conjecture: There exist infinitely many primes p such that p + 2 is a prime. In 1849, the french mathematician de
Polignac made the statement (more general than twin prime conjecture) that for every positive even integer k there
exist infinitely many primes p such that p + k is also a prime [6]. For k = 2 we have the twin prime conjecture.
The most significant result for twin primes is due to Viggo Brun [3], who proves, in 1915, that the sum of the
reciprocals of the odd twin primes,

B = (1/3 + 1/5) + (1/5 + 1/7) + (1/(11) + 1/(13)) + (1/(17) + 1/(19)) + ...

converges to a number known as the Brun’s constant. This outcome was the first use of the Brun sieve, and it
was the beginning of modern sieve theory. Since the series of all prime reciprocals diverges to infinity, the result from
Viggo Brun say us that twin primes are very scarce.
On April 17, 2013, the american mathematician (born in Shangai) Yitang Zhang claims that there are infinitely
many pairs of prime numbers that differ by 70 million or less [4]. For any m ≥ 1, let Hm denote the quantity
Hm = lim inf n→∞ (pn+m − pn ), where pn denotes the n-th prime. In his paper, Zhang proved that H1 ≤ 7 × 107 ; the
twin prime conjecture is equivalent to the assertion that H1 is equal to two. After the appearance of Zhang’s paper,
improvements to the upper bound on H1 were made. In addition, a Polymath project was made up to examine the
arguments of Zhang [5]; one year after Zhang’s announcement, the bound has been reduced to 246.
Let x > 0 be a positive real number; let π2 (x) be the number of twin primes p and p + 2 such that p ≤ x. In this
paper we prove (Main Theorem) the following: π2 (x) → ∞ as x → ∞.
One of the principal ways of addressing problems like the twin prime conjecture or the Goldbach’s conjecture have
been through the use of sieve methods. The Sieve theory has developed along of the last century, starting from the
Viggo Brun methods.
For the sake of completeness and convenience of the reader, in this paper we shall repeat some explanations and
arguments already given in [9]. Also, we use concepts and tools developed in [9], as well as the notations defined in
this paper, unless we specifically state otherwise.
We begin by defining the sieve of Eratosthenes, using the notation of the book by Cojocaru and √ Ram Murty [2].
Let A = {n ∈ Z+ : n ≤ x}, where x ∈ R, x > 1, and let P be the sequence of all primes. Let z = x, and

Y
P (z) = p.
p∈P
p<z

Now, to each p ∈ P, p < z, we associate the subset Ap of A , defined as follows: Ap = {n ∈ A : n ≡ 0 (mod p)}.
Then, when we sift out from A all the elements of every set Ap , the unsifted members
√ of A are the integers that are
not divisible by primes of P less than z; that is to say, any integer remaining in [ x, x) is a prime. Furthermore, if d
is a squarefree integer such that d|P (z), we define the set

\
Ad = Ap .
p|d

Thus, from the inclusion–exclusion principle, we obtain

1
 X
S(A , P, z) = µ (d) |Ad | , (1)
d|P (z)

where µ(d) is the Möbius function. Moreover, from (1), the Legendre formula can be derived

X X jxk
S(A , P, z) = µ (d) |Ad | = µ (d) .
d
d|P (z) d|P (z)
√
The sieve of Eratosthenes is useful for finding
√ the prime numbers between x and x; for our purposes, we need
first to isolate the subset of twin primes between x and x and then to obtain a lower bound for the size of this subset,
for every x sufficiently large. However, we can not hope to find a suitable lower bound for the size of this set using
the usual sieve methods, due to a well-known phenomenon in sieve theory, called the ‘parity barrier’ or the ‘parity
problem’ (see [9, Introduction, Subsection 1.1]). So far, all attempts to solve the twin prime problem by the usual
sieve techniques did not have the expected success. For these reasons, the strategy used in this paper differs quite a
lot from the usual approach in sieve theory.

n 2 3 5 7 n 2 3 5 7
1 1 1 1 1 31 1 1 1 3
2 0 2 2 2 32 0 2 2 4
3 1 0 3 3 33 1 0 3 5
4 0 1 4 4 34 0 1 4 6
5 1 2 0 5 35 1 2 0 0
6 0 0 1 6 36 0 0 1 1
7 1 1 2 0 37 1 1 2 2
8 0 2 3 1 38 0 2 3 3
9 1 0 4 2 39 1 0 4 4
10 0 1 0 3 40 0 1 0 5
11 1 2 1 4 41 1 2 1 6
12 0 0 2 5 42 0 0 2 0
13 1 1 3 6 43 1 1 3 1
14 0 2 4 0 44 0 2 4 2
15 1 0 0 1 45 1 0 0 3
16 0 1 1 2 46 0 1 1 4
17 1 2 2 3 47 1 2 2 5
18 0 0 3 4 48 0 0 3 6
19 1 1 4 5 49 1 1 4 0
20 0 2 0 6 50 0 2 0 1
21 1 0 1 0 51 1 0 1 2
22 0 1 2 1 52 0 1 2 3
23 1 2 3 2
24 0 0 4 3
25 1 1 0 4
26 0 2 1 5
27 1 0 2 6
28 0 1 3 0
29 1 2 4 1
30 0 0 0 2

Figure 1

Let P be the sequence of all primes; and given pk ∈ P, let mk = p1 p2 p3 · · · pk . From now on, and throughout
2
this paper, for convenience, we take x to be a real
√ number greater than p4 = 49, unless we specifically state otherwise.
Note that if pk is the greatest prime less than x, every real number x > 49 satisfies p2k < x ≤ p2k+1 < mk .

2
 Now, the formulation of the sieve of Eratosthenes using the classic sieve theory notation does not allow us to
discriminate between the twin primes and the other primes, for counting only the first ones. In this paper we propose
to use another formulation for this kind of sieves, using a sequence of k-tuples, which is able to show all the details of
the sifting process (see [9, Introduction, Subsection
√ 1.3]).
Let pk be the greatest prime less than x. In the formulation of the sieve of Eratosthenes by means of a sequence
of k-tuples, the index k is the corresponding to pk , and A is the set of integers that lie in the interval [1, x]. The
rules for selecting remainders are the following: In the k-tuples of the sequence, all the zeroes are defined as selected
remainders. Therefore, within the periods of every sequence of remainders modulo ph (a given column of the matrix),
the element 0 is always a selected remainder. We more formally define the formulation of this sieve using a sequence
of k-tuples in Section 2.
√
Remark 1.1. Note that given a k-tuple whose index is √ n ≤ x, if n ≡ 0 (mod p) for at least one p < x, then it is a
prohibited k-tuple, and if n 6≡ 0 (mod p) for every p < x, then it is a permitted k-tuple.
√
Clearly, the indices of the permitted k-tuples lying in√ the interval [ x, x) are prime numbers. Therefore, the indices
of a pair of permitted k-tuples that lie in the interval [ x, x) and differ by two form a pair of twin primes. In general,
a pair of permitted k-tuples whose indices differ by two is called a k-doubleton (see Definition 2.3).
Therefore, given a real number x > 49 (p2k < x ≤ p2k+1 ), it is easy to see that the ordered set of k-tuples whose
indices lie in the interval [1, x] is only an alternative formulation of the sieve of Eratosthenes, which was described
before by using the usual sieve theory notation. Figure 1 illustrates the sequence of k-tuples for x = 52, where the
selected remainders are circled, and the permitted k-tuples are colored gray. Note that this form of the sieve of
Eratosthenes gives us a detailed picture of the sifting process.
Since the sequence of k-tuples is periodic, it suffices to consider the first period of the sequence, between n = 1 and
n = mk . Note that given k ≥ 4, the fundamental period of the sequence of k-tuples is itself a sieve for the integers in
the interval [1, mk ], that sift out the indices of the prohibited k-tuples that lie in this interval; the indices that have
survived the sifting process are the corresponding to the permitted k-tuples.
An important fact is that for an interval whose size is the period mk of this sequence of k-tuples, we can compute
the exact number of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons within this interval. We shall prove that

k
Y
2 (ph − 2) (2)
h=3

counts the permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons within the interval [1, mk ], k ≥ 2 (Proposition 2.5).

7 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 ...

5 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 ...

3 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 ...
k
2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ...

... 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
... 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0
... 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
... 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
... 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210

Figure 2

Let us consider the sequence of k-tuples of remainders in horizontal position (see [9, Definition 3.1]). (Figure 2
shows the first period of the sequence in the horizontal position, for k = 4.) Suppose that we subdivide this period
into two intervals, as follows: the left interval I[1, p2k ], and the right interval I[p2k + 1, mk ]. We have now that the

3
period has been partitioned into two blocks: the left block formed by the columns from n = 1 to n = p2k ; and the right
block formed by the columns from n = p2k + 1 to n = mk .
The following question may have occurred to the reader at this point: What is the advantage of the formulation
of sieves based on a sequence of k-tuples of remainders? We shall explain the principal reason in what follows.
Let us consider again the sequence of k-tuples in horizontal position, where k ≥ 4. The interval I[1, p2k ] of this
sequence is a sieve device that sifts out the prohibited k-tuples that lie in I[1, p2k ] and allows the permitted k-tuples
in this interval to remain. Furthermore, for every h (1 ≤ h < k), there is also a sequence of h-tuples of remainders
and the interval I[1, p2k ]h of every sequence is also a sieve device that sifts out the prohibited h-tuples and allows the
permitted h-tuples in I[1, p2k ]h to remain. Thus, we have decomposed the sifting process into several stages, from h = 1
to h = k, where each ‘partial’ sieve device contributes to the whole sifting process. Hence, we can study the behaviour
of these partial sieve devices to determine the behaviour of the overall sieve; the advantage of this perspective will
become apparent in the rest of this section. It is obvious that as h goes from 1 to k, the number of permitted h-tuples
decreases as a result of the sifting process in each stage of the entire sifting process.
In particular, in the case of the prime twins problem, there is another important advantage of the formulation of
the sieve of Eratosthenes by means of a sequence of k-tuples of remainders. As we have seen, the sieve of Eratosthenes
is given by √the ordered set of k-tuples whose indices lie in the interval [1, x] and the indices of the permitted k-tuples
√
that lie in [ x, x) are all the primes in this interval; so, these indices can be twin primes, or other primes in [ x, x).
However, given the sequence of k-tuples of remainders, the number of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons
within the period of the sequence can be computed separately from the others permitted k-tuples (see (2)). Therefore,
we can precisely compute the number of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h of every
sequence of h-tuples from h = 1 to h = k. Thus, we can obtain the density of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons
within each of those intervals.

Table 1: Values of ck , ck /mk and δk .

k pk mk ck ck /mk δk
4 7 210 30 0.142 1.000
5 11 2310 270 0.116 1.286
6 13 30030 2970 0.098 1.286
7 17 510510 44550 0.088 1.484
8 19 9699690 757350 0.078 1.484
9 23 223092870 15904350 0.072 1.640
10 29 - - 0.066 1.924
11 31 - - 0.062 1.924
12 37 - - 0.058 2.174
13 41 - - 0.056 2.290
14 43 - - 0.054 2.290
15 47 - - 0.050 2.398
16 53 - - 0.048 2.602
17 59 - - 0.048 2.798
18 61 - - 0.046 2.798
19 67 - - 0.044 2.980
20 71 - - 0.044 3.070
21 73 - - 0.042 3.070
22 79 - - 0.040 3.238
23 83 - - 0.040 3.320
24 89 - - 0.038 3.480
. . . . . .

We shall prove that the density of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons within the period I[1, mk ] of the
sequence of k-tuples, denoted by δk , increases and tends to infinity as k → ∞ (Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.4). For
some values of k, Table 1 gives the number of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons within I[1, mk ], denoted by
ck , the ratio ck /mk , and δk .
Let us consider a given partial sum Sk . Clearly, the density of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons in the
interval I[1, mk ]h of every partial sum Sh (1 ≤ h ≤ k) is δh , which increases from h = 1 to h = k for sufficiently large
k. On the other hand, we shall prove that the behaviour of the density of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons
in every interval I[1, p2k ]h from h = 1 to h = k is rather similar to the behavior of δh , for sufficiently large k. Hence,
we can compute a lower bound for the density of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons in the interval I[1, p2k ], for
sufficiently large k. Thus, from this result, we can prove the Main theorem.

4
2 Periodic sequences of k-tuples
In this section we formally define the formulationP of the sieve of Eratosthenes based in a sequence of k tuples of
remainders. Let Sk be a partial sum of the series sk . The rule for selecting remainders in the sequences sh (1 ≤
h ≤ k) that constitute every partial sum Sk is the following.
Definition 2.1. Let sh (1 ≤ h ≤ k) be one of the sequences of remainders that form the partial sum Sk . In every
sequence of remainders sh , the remainder 0 will be the unique selected remainder.
Now, we are ready to formally define the following sieve, which we call simply Sieve E.
Definition 2.2. Let P be the sequence of all primes, and let pk (k ≥ 4) be a prime of the sequence. Let A be
the set consisting of the indices n of the partial sum Sk that lie in the interval [1, y], where y is a real number that
satisfies y > pk . For each p = ph ∈ P (1 ≤ h ≤ k), the subset Ap of A consists of the indices n whose remainder
modulo p = ph is the selected remainder 0. The indices of the prohibited k-tuples lying in A are sifted out, and the
indices of the permitted k-tuples lying in A remain unsifted. See Remark 1.1. The sifting function

 
 
 [ 
S(A , P, pk ) = A \ Ap  ,
 
 p∈P 
p≤pk
 

is given by the number of permitted k-tuples whose indices belong to the set A .
√
Let x > 49 be a real number, and let pk be the greatest prime less than x. Let us consider the Sieve E and the
associated partial sum Sk (k ≥ 4). Assume A = {n : 1 ≤ n ≤ x}, where p2k < x ≤ p2k+1 . The set of consecutive
k-tuples of the partial sum Sk , whose indices lie in the interval [1, x], is an alternative formulation of the sieve of
Eratosthenes; that is, the unsifted elements in the sieve of Eratosthenes are the indices of the permitted k-tuples that
lie in the interval [1, x]. P
In the following theorems we prove some other properties of the partial sums of the series sk , which will be used
throughout this paper.
Proposition 2.1. Let Sk be a given partial sum, where k > 1. The first k-tuple and the penultimate k-tuple of the
period of Sk are permitted k-tuples.
Proof. Let sh (1 ≤ h ≤ k) be the sequences of remainders that form the partial sum Sk . Since 1 6≡ 0 (mod ph ) for
every ph ∈ p1 , p2 , p3 , . . . , pk , the first k-tuple of the period has no element equal to 0. Therefore, by definition, the
first k-tuple of the period is a permitted k-tuple.
On the other hand, it is easy to check that all the elements of the last k-tuple of the period are zeroes. So, the
penultimate k-tuple of the period has no element equal to 0. Therefore, by definition, is a permitted k-tuple as well.

Definition 2.3. Given a partial sum Sk (k > 1), we define a k-doubleton to be a pair of permitted k-tuples whose
indices are n and n+2 respectively. We call these permitted k-tuples the First k-tuple and the Last k-tuple respectively.
Note . In the partial sum S1 the indices of the permitted 1-tuples are the odd numbers; so, the concept of 1-doubleton
does not make sense.
Remark 2.1. Note that given a period of the partial sum Sk (k ≥ 2), by Proposition 2.1, the penultimate k-tuple
of this period and the first k-tuple of the next period form a k-doubleton.
Definition 2.4. Given a period of the partial sum Sk , the first k-tuple and the penultimate k-tuple of this period
are counted as part of a k-doubleton.
Remark 2.2. Let S2 be the partial sum of level k = 2. The period of S2 is m2 = p1 p2 = 6; and it is easy to check
that there are two permitted 2-tuples, at positions n = 1 and n = 5.
Proposition 2.2. Let Sk be a given partial sum, where k > 1. Let sk+1 be the sequence of remainders modulo pk+1 .
Let n and n + 2 be the indices of the First k-tuple and the Last k-tuple of a given k-doubleton of Sk . Then, when we
juxtapose the remainders of the sequence sk+1 to each k-tuple of Sk , if the First k-tuple is removed (see [9, Definition
6.2]), the Last k-tuple is not removed; and vice versa.
Proof. In the sequence sk+1 , the only selected remainder is 0. Assume that both the First k-tuple and the Last k-tuple
are removed; this means that n ≡ 0 (mod pk+1 ), and n + 2 ≡ 0 (mod pk+1 ), by [9, Proposition 2.2]. It follows that
2 ≡ 0 (mod pk+1 ). But this is not possible since k > 1; it follows that if the First k-tuple is removed, the Last k-tuple
is not removed; and vice versa.

5
 Definition 2.5. When we juxtapose the remainders of the sequence sk+1 to each k-tuple of Sk (k > 1), if either
the First k-tuple or the Last k-tuple of a k-doubleton is removed, we say that at the level transition k → k + 1 one
k-doubleton is removed.
To get a period of the partial sum Sk+1 , we first take pk+1 periods of the partial sum Sk . Let us consider the
permitted k-tuples that form k-doubletons (the First or the Last k-tuples of a given k-doubleton) and are within the
first pk+1 periods of the partial sum Sk . The following proposition shows that the distribution of all these permitted
k-tuples over the residue classes modulo pk+1 is uniform.
Proposition 2.3. The permitted k-tuples that form k-doubletons and are within the first pk+1 periods of the partial
sum Sk , are uniformly distributed over the residue classes modulo pk+1 .
Proof. Step 1. Let [y] = [0], [1], [2], . . . , [pk+1 − 1] be the residue classes modulo pk+1 . Let n be the index of a given
permitted k-tuple within the first period of the partial sum Sk . Thus, within the first pk+1 periods of the
partial sum Sk there are pk+1 permitted k-tuples with indices n0 = mk x + n, where x = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , pk+1 − 1
represents each period. Because (mk , pk+1 ) = 1, for each residue class [y] the congruence mk x + n ≡ y
(mod pk+1 ) has a unique solution x.
Step 2. Let c be the number of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons, within a period of Sk . So, there are pk+1 c
of these permitted k-tuples within the first pk+1 periods of the partial sum Sk . Now, from Step 1 follows that
there are c of these permitted k-tuples within each residue class modulo pk+1 . Thus, the pk+1 c permitted
k-tuples which form k-doubletons within the first pk+1 periods of the partial sum Sk , are uniformly distributed
over the residue classes modulo pk+1 .

Corollary 2.4. If there are m0 consecutive periods of the partial sum Sk , where m0 is a multiple of pk+1 , the permitted
k-tuples that form k-doubletons within these m0 periods are also uniformly distributed over the residue classes modulo
pk+1 .
The following proposition gives us an important formula for the number of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons
within a period of Sk . First, a definition.
Definition 2.6. For a given partial sum Sk (k > 1), we denote by ck the number of permitted k-tuples which form
k-doubletons within a period of Sk .
Proposition 2.5. Let Sk be a given partial sum (k > 1). We have: ck = 2(p3 − 2)(p4 − 2) · · · (pk − 2).
Proof. Let sh (1 ≤ h ≤ k) be the sequences that form Sk . By definition, we have Sk = Sk−1 + sk .
Step 1. By definition, the number of permitted (k − 1)-tuples that form (k − 1)-doubletons within a period of the
partial sum Sk−1 is ck−1 . To construct the period of the partial sum Sk , we first take pk periods of Sk−1 ; so,
there are pk ck−1 of these permitted (k − 1)-tuples within the first pk periods of Sk−1 .
Step 2. Now, when we juxtapose the remainders of the sequence sk to each (k−1)-tuple of Sk−1 , by [9, Proposition 2.2],
the permitted (k−1)-tuples whose indices are included in the residue class 0 modulo pk are removed, since 0 is a
selected remainder within the period of sk , by definition. Among the permitted (k−1)-tuples removed, only one
of them can belong to a given (k − 1)-doubleton (see Proposition 2.2). Since, by Proposition 2.3, the permitted
(k − 1)-tuples that form (k − 1)-doubletons within the first pk periods of Sk−1 are distributed uniformly over
the residue classes modulo pk , a fraction 1/pk of these permitted (k − 1)-tuples are removed. However, by
definition, if either the First k-tuple or the Last k-tuple of a k-doubleton is removed, the complete k-doubleton
is removed. Hence, using Step 1, the number of permitted (k − 1)-tuples that form (k − 1)-doubletons, and are
removed at the level transition (k − 1) → k is (pk ck−1 )2/pk = 2ck−1 . Since by Step 1 the original number of
permitted (k − 1)-tuples that form (k − 1)-doubletons within the first pk periods of Sk−1 is pk ck−1 , it follows
that ck = pk ck−1 − 2ck−1 = ck−1 (pk − 2) of the permitted (k − 1)-tuples that form (k − 1)-doubletons are
transferred to level k as permitted k-tuples that form k-doubletons within the period of the partial sum Sk .
Step 3. Let S2 be the partial sum of level k = 2. In a period of S2 there are two permitted 2-tuples (see Remark 2.1);
by definition, each one of these permitted 2-tuples is counted as part of a 2-doubleton. So, the number of
permitted 2-tuples that form 2-doubletons within every period of S2 is c2 = 2. From this and Step 2 follows
that the number of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons within a period of the partial sum Sk is given
recursively by the formula

c2 = 2,
ck = ck−1 (pk − 2) .

It follows that ck = 2(p3 − 2)(p4 − 2) · · · (pk − 2).

6
3 The density of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons
In this section, we define the concept of the density of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons, and we prove
some properties with regard to the behaviour of this quantity.
P
Definition 3.1. Let Sk (k > 1) be a given partial sum of the series sk ; let I[m, n] be a given interval of k-tuples.
I[m,n]
We denote by ck the number of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons within I[m, n].
Remark 3.1. Given a k-doubleton, the First k-tuple could be inside the interval I[m, n], while the Last k-tuple is
I[m,n]
outside; so, the First k-tuple is counted in ck , and the Last k-tuple is not. On the other hand, the Last k-tuple
I[m,n]
could be inside the interval I[m, n], while the First k-tuple is outside; in this case the Last k-tuple is counted in ck ,
and the First k-tuple is not.
P
Definition 3.2. Let Sk (k > 1) be a partial sum of the series sk ; let I[m, n] be a given interval of k-tuples. The
number of subintervals of size pk in this interval is equal to |I[m, n]|/pk . We define the density of permitted k-tuples
which form k-doubletons in the interval I[m, n] by

I[m,n]
I[m,n] ck
δk = .
|I [m, n]| /pk
I[]
For the empty interval we define δk = 0.
Note . The density of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons is the average number of these permitted k-tuples
inside subintervals of size pk .
P
Definition 3.3. Let Sk (k > 1) be a given partial sum of the series sk ; let mk be the period of Sk . Recall that
I[1,mk ]
we have used the notation ck = ck for the number of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons within the interval
I[1,mk ]
I[1, mk ] (the first period of Sk ). We normally use the notation δk = δk for the density of permitted k-tuples
which form k-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]. Since mk /pk is the number of subintervals of size pk within a
period of Sk , by definition, we have

ck
δk = .
mk /pk

The following lemma gives a formula for computing δk .

P
Lemma 3.1. Let Sk (k > 1) be a given partial sum of the series sk . We have

     
p1 − 1 p2 − 2 p3 − 2 pk−1 − 2
δk = 2 ··· (pk − 2) .
p1 p2 p3 pk−1

Proof. The size of the period of the partial sum Sk is equal to mk = p1 p2 p3 · · · pk−1 pk (see [9, Proposition 2.1]).
Therefore, the number of subintervals of size pk is equal to (p1 p2 p3 · · · pk−1 pk )/pk = p1 p2 p3 · · · pk−1 . On the other
hand, the number of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons within a period of Sk is equal to ck = 2(p3 − 2)(p4 −
2) · · · (pk−1 − 2)(pk − 2) (see Proposition 2.5). Consequently, by definition, we obtain

2 (p3 − 2) (p4 − 2) · · · (pk−1 − 2) (pk − 2) 2 (p1 − 1) (p2 − 2) (p3 − 2) · · · (pk−1 − 2) (pk − 2)

δk = = =
p1 p2 p3 · · · pk−1 p1 p2 p3 · · · pk−1
     
p1 − 1 p2 − 2 p3 − 2 pk−1 − 2
=2 ··· (pk − 2) .
p1 p2 p3 pk−1

The next lemma proves that δk is increasing if k > 1.

P
Lemma 3.2. Let Sk and Sk+1 be consecutive partial sums of the series sk , where k > 1. If δk denotes the
density of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons within a period of Sk , and δk+1 denotes the density of permitted
(k + 1)-tuples which form (k + 1)-doubletons within a period of Sk+1 , then

 
pk+1 − 2
δk+1 = δk .
pk

7
Proof. Taking the quotient δk+1 /δk and simplifying, the proof follows immediately.

Corollary 3.3. By Lemma 3.2,

1. pk+1 − pk = 2 =⇒ δk+1 = δk .
2. pk+1 − pk > 2 =⇒ δk+1 > δk .

Now we prove that δk → ∞ as k → ∞. First, we make a definition.

Definition 3.4. Let pk > 2 and pk+1 be consecutive primes. We denote by θk the difference pk+1 − pk − 2.
Theorem 3.4. Let Sk (k > 1) be a given partial sum. Let δk be the density of permitted k-tuples which form
k-doubletons within a period of Sk . As k → ∞, we have δk → ∞.
Proof. By Lemma 3.1,

       
p1 − 1 p2 − 2 p3 − 2 p4 − 2 p5 − 2 pk−1 − 2
δk = 2 ··· (pk − 2) .
p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 pk−1

If we shift denominators to the right, we obtain

       
p2 − 2 p3 − 2 p4 − 2 p5 − 2 pk−1 − 2 pk − 2
δk = 2 (p1 − 1) ··· .
p1 p2 p3 p4 pk−2 pk−1

By definition, θk = pk+1 − pk − 2 =⇒ pk+1 − 2 = pk + θk . Consequently, we can write the expression of δk as

      
p2 + θ2 p3 + θ3 p4 + θ4 pk−2 + θk−2 pk−1 + θk−1
δk = ··· =
p2 p3 p4 pk−2 pk−1
      
θ2 θ3 θ4 θk−2 θk−1
= 1+ 1+ 1+ ··· 1 + 1+ =
p2 p3 p4 pk−2 pk−1
       
2 1 θ2 θ3 θ4 θk−1 θk pk
= 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ ··· 1 + 1+ .
3 p1 p2 p3 p4 pk−1 pk pk + θk

Then

∞ 
" Y #
2 1 θk pk
lim δk = 1+ 1+ lim . (3)
k→∞ 3 p1 pk k→∞ pk + θk
k=2

The infinite product between square brackets diverges if the series

∞
1 X θk
+ (4)
p1 pk
k=2

diverges. In the series

P∞ (4), if pk is the first of a pair of twin primes, by definition we have θk = 0; otherwise
we have θk ≥ 2. Let j=1 1/qj denote the series where every prime qj is the first of a pair of twin primes. Since
P∞
the series of reciprocals of the twin primes converges [3], the series j=1 1/qj also converges. Therefore, the series
P∞ P∞ P∞ P∞ P∞
k=1 1/pk − j=1 1/qj diverges, because k=1 1/pk diverges. By comparison with the series k=1 1/pk − j=1 1/qj ,
it follows that the series (4) diverges, because θk /pk > 1/pk for the terms where θk > 0. Thus, the infinite product in
(3) tends to ∞ as well. On the other hand, by the Bertrand-Chebyshev theorem, pk < pk+1 < 2pk =⇒ θk < pk =⇒
pk /(pk + θk ) > 1/2. Consequently, δk → ∞ as k → ∞.

P
Let Sk (k > 1) be a partial sum of the series sk . We recall that pk denotes its characteristic prime modulus, and
mk denotes its period. In addition, recall that ck denotes the number of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons,
and δk denotes the density of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons, within the period of Sk .
I[1,n]
Let I[1, n] (n ≥ mk ) be a given interval of k-tuples of the partial sum Sk . We denote by ck the number of
I[1,n]
permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons, and by δk the density of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons
I[1,n]
within I[1, n]. The following proposition shows that δk tends to δk as n → ∞.

8
 I[1,n]
Proposition 3.5. As n → ∞, the density δk converges to δk .
Proof. By definition,

I[1,n]
I[1,n] ck
δk = n .
pk

Since n ≥ mk , we have a first part of the interval I[1, n] whose size is a multiple of mk . Let us denote by cη the
number of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons within this part of I[1, n]. So, bn/mk cmk /pk is the number
of subintervals of size pk within this first part of the interval I[1, n]; multiplying by the density of permitted k-tuples
which form k-doubletons within the period of Sk , we obtain

j k
n
mk mk
cη = δk .
pk
On the other hand, let us denote by c the number of permitted k-tuples forming k-doubletons within the remainder
I[1,n]
part of I[1, n]. Since ck is the number of permitted k-tuples which form k-doubletons within I[1, n], we have
I[1,n]
ck = cη + c . Then

j k
n j k
mk mk n
I[1,n]
ck cη + c δ k + c mk mk pk c
I[1,n] pk
δk = n = n = n = δk + .
pk pk pk n n

Now, as n → ∞, the values mk , pk , ck and δk are constants; and c is bounded by ck . Therefore, in the expression
I[1,n] I[1,n]
of δk , the factor that multiplies δk tends to one, and the second term tends to zero. This implies that δk
converges to δk as n → ∞.

4 The behaviour of the density of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons

between h = 2 and h = k
P
Suppose given a partial sum Sk (k > 1) of the series sk . Let sh (1 ≤ h ≤ k) be the periodic sequences of remainders
that form Sk . Let mh be the period of every partial sum Sh from level h = 1 to level h = k. Let ch be the number of
permitted h-tuples that form h-doubletons, and let δh be the density of permitted h-tuples that form h-doubletons,
within the period of every partial sum Sh (2 ≤ h ≤ k).
We need the following result, which is a corollary of Proposition 2.5.
P
Lemma 4.1. Let Sk (k ≥ 4) be the partial sum of the series sk associated to the Sieve E. Let us consider the
interval I[1, mk ]h in every partial sum Sh , from level h = 2 to level h = k. Let us denote by mh the period of the
partial sum Sh , and by ch the number of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within a period of the partial sum
Sh (2 ≤ h ≤ k). For any given partial sum Sh (2 ≤ h < k), the number of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons
within the interval I[1, mk ]h is equal to ch ph+1 ph+2 · · · pk .

Proof. Choose a level h (2 ≤ h < k). By definition, we have mk = p1 p2 p3 · · · ph ph+1 ph+2 · · · pk = mh ph+1 ph+2 · · · pk .
That is, the size of the interval I[1, mk ]h of the partial sum Sh is equal to ph+1 ph+2 · · · pk times the period mh of the
partial sum Sh . Consequently, it is easy to see that the number of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within
the interval I[1, mk ]h is equal to ch ph+1 ph+2 · · · pk .

Now, let us denote by c0h the number of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h of
every partial sum Sh (1 ≤ h ≤ k), which is computed using Proposition 2.5 and Lemma 4.1. The behaviour of c0h as
h goes from level 1 to level k is given by the following lemma.
P
Lemma 4.2. Let Sk (k ≥ 4) be the partial sum of the series sk associated to the Sieve E. Let us consider the
interval I[1, mk ]h in every partial sum Sh , from level h = 2 to level h = k. Let h and h + 1 be consecutive levels, where
1 ≤ h < k. We have

 
ph+1 − 2
c0h+1 = c0h .
ph+1

9
Proof. Given the partial sum Sh (1 ≤ h < k), suppose that we juxtapose the remainders of the sequence sh+1 to
each h-tuple of Sh . By [9, Proposition 2.2]), the permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h
whose indices are included in the residue class 0 modulo ph+1 are removed. Furthermore, for every permitted h-tuple
forming a given h-doubleton that is removed, the other permitted h-tuple forming this h-doubleton is also ‘removed’
in the sense that it is transferred to level h + 1 as permitted (h + 1)-tuple within the interval I[1, mk ]h+1 of the partial
sum Sh+1 but is not part of any (h + 1)-doubleton in I[1, mk ]h+1 . The other permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons
whose indices are not included in the residue class 0 modulo ph+1 are transferred to level h + 1 as permitted (h + 1)-
tuples forming (h + 1)-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h+1 of the partial sum Sh+1 . Since for every level h < k,
the size of the interval I[1, mk ]h is a multiple of ph+1 , by Proposition 2.3 and Corollary 2.4, the permitted h-tuples
forming h-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h of Sh are distributed uniformly over the residue classes modulo
ph+1 . Therefore, a 2/ph+1 fraction of the permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h of Sh
have been removed, and a (ph+1 − 2)/ph+1 fraction have been transferred to level h + 1 as permitted (h + 1)-tuples
forming (h + 1)-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h+1 of Sh+1 . From this result, the lemma follows.

Let us now examine the behaviour of δh as h goes from level 1 to level k. Since the selected remainder of the
sequence sh+1 remove permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h of the partial sum Sh , at
each level transition h → h + 1, the number of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons decreases as the level increases
from h = 1 to h = k (the factor by which we must multiply c0h to obtain c0h+1 is given by Lemma 4.2). However, by
Lemma 3.2 and Corollary 3.3, the density of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h of
the partial sum Sh grows at each transition ph → ph+1 of order greater than 2; and if ph → ph+1 is a level transition
of order 2, the density of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within I[1, mk ]h does not change.
Remark 4.1. Note that if ph → ph+1 is a level transition of order greater than 2, δh increases because to compute
the density of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons we count this permitted h-tuples within subintervals of size
ph , which grow by more than 2, overcompensating for the removed permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons. On the
other hand, if ph → ph+1 is a level transition of order 2, δh does not change because the increase in the size ph is
compensated for by the removed permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons. Note that the result from Lemma 3.2 can
be written in the form

  
ph+1 − 2 ph+1
δh+1 = δh ,
ph+1 ph

where the factor (ph+1 − 2)/ph+1 is related to the permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons removed from I[1, mk ]h
(see Lemma 4.2), and the factor ph+1 /ph is related to the increase of the size of the subintervals.
Definition 4.1. For a given partial sum Sh (2 ≤ h ≤ k), we use the notation cL h to denote the number of permitted
k

h-tuples that form h-doubletons within the Left interval I[1, pk ]h , and we use the notation cR
2
h to denote the number
k

2
of permitted h-tuples that form h-doubletons within the Right interval I[pk + 1, mk ]h (see [9, Definition 6.3]). We use
the notation δhLk to denote the density of permitted h-tuples that form h-doubletons within the Left interval I[1, p2k ]h ,
and we use the notation δhRk to denote the density of permitted h-tuples that form h-doubletons within the Right
interval I[p2k + 1, mk ]h .
Recall that we use the notation δk for the density of permitted k-tuples that form k-doubletons within the interval
I[1, mk ]. Now, choose a level h such that 2 ≤ h < k. As we have seen in the proof of Lemma 4.1, we have
mk = mh ph+1 ph+2 · · · pk ; in other words, the size of the interval I[1, mk ]h is equal to ph+1 ph+2 · · · pk times the period
mh of the partial sum Sh . Consequently, it is easy to see that the density of permitted h-tuples that form h-doubletons
within the interval I[1, mk ]h is equal to δh . Hence, for every level h (2 ≤ h ≤ k), we have

δhLk > δh ⇐⇒ δhRk < δh , (5)

δhLk < δh ⇐⇒ δhRk > δh .

5 Proof of the Main Theorem

For every partial sum Sh from level h = 1 to level h = k (k ≥ 4), let us consider the interval I[1, mk ]h , the Left interval
I[1, p2k ]h and the Right interval I[p2k + 1, mk ]h . Recall the notation δh for the density of permitted h-tuples forming
h-doubletons within the period of Sh , and recall the notation δhLk and δhRk for the density of permitted h-tuples forming
h-doubletons within the intervals I[1, p2k ]h and I[p2k + 1, mk ]h , respectively, where 2 ≤ h ≤ k.
In this section, we shall prove that there exists a sufficiently large integer Kα > 4 such that the number of permitted
k-tuples forming k-doubletons within the Left interval I[1, p2k ] of the partial sum Sk is greater than pk for every k > Kα .

10
 P
Definition 5.1. Let Sk be a given partial sum of the series sk . Given the level transition ph → ph+1 (2 ≤ h < k),
Lk
we denote by Fh,h+1 the fraction of the permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within the Left interval I[1, p2k ]h of
Sh that are transferred to the Left interval I[1, p2k ]h+1 of Sh+1 as permitted (h + 1)-tuples forming (h + 1)-doubletons.
P
Remark 5.1. Let Sk be a given partial sum of the series sk . Suppose that in every level transition ph → ph+1 (2 ≤
Lk
h < k), the value of Fh,h+1 is very close to the fraction (ph+1 −2)/ph+1 , given by Lemma 4.2 for the intervals I[1, mk ]h .
In this case, if k is sufficiently large, δhLk must increase between h = 2 and h = k, by the arguments given in Remark 4.1
for δh .
Now, suppose that there exists a level h = h0 (1 < h0 < k), where the difference k − h0 is sufficiently large, such that
Lk
δh does not increase between h = h0 and h = k. Clearly, this can only happen if there are level transitions ph → ph+1
Lk
between h = h0 and h = k for which Fh,h+1 is too far below the fraction (ph+1 − 2)/ph+1 given by Lemma 4.2.
sk , and consider a given level h = h0 (1 < h0 < k). Given
P
Remark 5.2. Let Sk be a partial sum of the series
consecutive primes ph and ph+1 , we denote gh = ph+1 − ph . Assume that in each period (of size ph ) of every sequence
sh from h = h0 + 1 to h = k of Sk there are gh selected remainders (the same in every period of the sequence).
As we have seen in [9, Remark 6.2], the selected remainders in every sequence sh (h0 < h ≤ k) remove permitted
(h−1)-tuples from the partial sum Sh−1 . However, under the preceding assumption, the fraction of permitted h-tuples
forming h-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h of Sh that are transferred to the interval I[1, mk ]h+1 of Sh+1 as
permitted (h + 1)-tuples forming (h + 1)-doubletons is equal to (ph+1 − gh )/ph+1 , where h0 ≤ h < k (see the proof
of Lemma 4.2). So, for sufficiently large k, the whole number of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons removed
between h = h0 and h = k is rather greater than in the case where there is only one selected remainder in every period
of the sequences sh (h0 < h ≤ k). Furthermore, in every level transition ph → ph+1 (h0 ≤ h < k), the increase of δh
under this assumption would be given by
  
ph+1 − gh ph+1
δh+1 = δh = δh ,
ph+1 ph
(see Remark 4.1). This means that under the preceding assumption, the density of permitted h-tuples forming
h-doubletons within the interval I[1, mk ]h of Sh does not increase between h = h0 and h = k.
Lemma 5.1. Let Sk (k > 4) be the partial sum associated to the Sieve E. Let I[1, p2k ]h be the Left interval for every
partial sum Sh from h = 1 to h = k. Furthermore, let δhLk be the density of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons
within every Left interval I[1, p2k ]h (2 ≤ h ≤ k). There exists an integer Kα > 4 such that δkLk > δ4 for every k > Kα .
Proof. Step 1. Let us consider the density of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within every interval I[1, mk ]h
from h = 2 to h = k, denoted by δh . Recall that, as the level increases from h = 2 to h = k, the value of δh
increases at each level transition ph → ph+1 of order greater than 2, and, if ph → ph+1 is a level transition of
order 2, δh does not change, as we have seen in the paragraph below Lemma 4.2 and in Remark 4.1.
The fact that I[1, p2k ]h ⊂ I[1, mk ]h (1 ≤ h ≤ k) suggests that for every h (2 ≤ h ≤ k) the value of δhLk is
relatively close to δh , if k is sufficiently large. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that for k sufficiently large
it must be δkLk > δ4 . In the following steps we shall prove that, indeed, the preceding assumption is true.
Step 2. Consider Sk (k > 5) and choose a fixed level h = h0 (4 < h0 < k). (Note that δh0 > δ4 , by Corollary 3.3.) Let
ε > 0 be a very small real number. Let Kα be a positive integer sufficiently large that for every k > Kα the
two following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The size of the Left interval I[1, p2k ]h0 is sufficiently large that

δh0 − ε < δhL0k < δh0 + ε.

(See Proposition 3.5.)
(b) The number and proportion of level transitions h → h + 1 of order greater than 2 between h = h0 and
h = k are very large.
Step 3. Let us consider the interval I[1, mk ]h in every partial sum Sh from h = h0 to h = k. Under the condition
assumed in Remark 5.2 (with regard to the selected remainders in the sequences sh ), for every level transition
ph → ph+1 between h = h0 and h = k, the fraction of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within the
interval I[1, mk ]h of Sh that are transferred to the interval I[1, mk ]h+1 of Sh+1 as permitted (h + 1)-tuples
forming (h + 1)-doubletons is equal to (ph+1 − gh )/ph+1 , where h0 ≤ h < k. Hence, in this case, for every
level transition ph → ph+1 of order greater than 2 (that is gh > 2) between h = h0 and h = k, the number
of permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons removed from I[1, mk ]h , is rather greater than in the case where
there is only one selected remainder in every period of the sequences sh (h0 < h ≤ k), so, the density of
permitted h-tuples forming h-doubletons within I[1, mk ]h does not increase as h goes from level h0 to level k
(see Remark 5.2).

11
Step 4. Now, let us consider the Left intervals I[1, p2k ]h from h = h0 to h = k, of the partial sum Sk (k > Kα )
associated to the Sieve E. On the one hand, by Step 2 (a) the density of permitted h0 -tuples forming h0 -
doubletons within the Left interval I[1, p2k ]h0 , denoted by δhL0k , is very close to δh0 . On the other hand, in the
case of the Sieve E the condition assumed in Remark 5.2 is not present (see Definition 2.1). Therefore, for
Lk
every level transition ph → ph+1 between h = h0 and h = k, clearly, the fraction Fh,h+1 must be much closer
to the fraction (ph+1 − 2)/ph+1 given by Lemma 4.2 than to (ph+1 − gh )/ph+1 , the fraction obtained under
the condition assumed in Remark 5.2 (see the preceding step). Furthermore, by Step 2 (b), the number and
proportion of level transitions h → h + 1 of order greater than 2 between h = h0 and h = k is very large (see
Step 1). Therefore, δhLk must increase as h goes from level h0 to level k > Kα , by the same arguments given in
Remark 4.1 that explain the behaviour of δh (see Remark 5.1). Thus, δhLk will take some value greater than
δh0 + ε for every k > Kα , if Kα is suficiently large.
Step 5. Clearly, by the preceding step, δkLk > δh0 > δ4 for every k > Kα , for sufficiently large Kα . The lemma is
proved.

The next lemma shows that for sufficiently large k, the number of permitted k-tuples that form k-doubletons within
the Left interval I[1, p2k ] of the partial sum Sk is greater than pk .

sk . Let cL
P
Lemma 5.2. Let Sk (k ≥ 5) be a partial sum of the series k denote the number of permitted k-tuples
k

2
forming k-doubletons within the Left interval I[1, pk ] of the partial sum Sk . Let Kα be the number whose existence is
established in Lemma 5.1. For every k > Kα we have cL k > pk .
k

Proof. Since the size of the Left interval I[1, p2k ] of the partial sum Sk is equal to p2k , there are pk subintervals of size
pk in this interval; it follows that cL Lk Lk
k = δk pk . Then, ck > δ4 pk for every k > Kα , by Lemma 5.1. Using Lemma 3.1
k

we can check that δ4 = 1, and so cL k > pk for every k > Kα .

k

Definition 5.2. Consider the interval I[1, mk ] of the partial sum Sk . Given a permitted k-tuple in I[1, mk ] which
is not part of any k-doubleton, we call it a single permitted k-tuple. Let B be the set consisting of all the indices n
of the single permitted k-tuples within the Left interval I[1, p2k ].
Finally, we prove the Main Theorem.

Theorem 5.3. Main Theorem √

Let x > 49 be a real number, and let pk be the greatest prime less than z = x. Let us consider the Sieve E and
the associated partial sum Sk (k ≥ 4). Let Kα be the number whose existence is established in Lemma 5.1. Recall the
notation π2 (x) for the number of twin primes in [1, x].
We have π2 (x) → ∞ as x → ∞.

Proof. In the Sieve E, let A = {n : 1 ≤ n ≤ p2k }. Clearly, the indices n > 1 of the permitted k-tuples within the Left
interval I[1, p2k ] are all the primes that lie in (pk , p2k ]. On the other hand, the quantity S(A , P, pk ) − |B| − 1 is the
number of the permitted k-tuples within I[1, p2k ] whose indices are primes and are forming k-doubletons, that is, is
the number of twin primes in (pk , p2k ].
Now, S(A , P, pk ) − |B| > pk for every k > Kα , by Lemma 5.2, so, S(A , P, pk ) − |B| − 1 > pk − 1 (k > Kα ).
Therefore,

π2 (x) ≥ S(A , P, pk ) − |B| − 1 > pk − 1 (k > Kα ), (6)

since [1, p2k ] ⊂ [1, x]. Since pk → ∞ as x → ∞, it follows from (6) that π2 (x) → ∞ as x → ∞, and the theorem is
proved.

We conclude that the Twin prime conjecture is true.

Acknowledgements

The author wants to thank Olga Vinogradova (Mathematics student, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires),
Dra. Patricia Quattrini (Departamento de Matematicas, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires), Dr. Ricardo Duran
(Departamento de Matematicas, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires) for helpful conversations and Dr. Hendrik W.
Lenstra (Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands), for his extremely useful suggestions.

12
References
[1] H. Halberstam and H.-E. Richert, Sieve Methods, Academic Press, London, 1974.
[2] A. C. Cojocaru and M. Ram Murty, An Introduction to Sieve Methods an Their Applications, Cambridge University Press,
London, 2005.
[3] V. Brun, La série 1/5 + 1/7 + 1/11 + 1/13 + 1/17 + 1/19 + 1/29 + 1/31 + 1/41 + 1/43 + 1/59 + 1/61 + . . ., où les dénominateurs
sont nombres premieres jumeaux est convergente où finie, Bull. Sci. Math., 43, (1919), 124–128.
[4] Y. Zhang, Bounded gaps between primes, Ann. of Math., 179, (2014), 1121–1174.
[5] Polymath8, Bounded gaps between primes, http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php
[6] E. W. Weisstein, de Polignac’s Conjecture, MathWorld, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/dePolignacsConjecture.html
[7] Terence Tao, Open question: The parity problem in sieve theory,
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/open-question-the-parity-problem-in-sieve-theory/.
[8] A.Selberg, The general sieve method and its place in prime number theory, Proc. Int. Congress of Mathematicians Cam-
bridge, MA (Providence, RI. American Mathematical Society), 1 (1950), 262–289.
[9] R. Barca, Every sufficiently large even number is the sum of two primes, preprint,
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02075531v4.

Ricardo G. Barca
Universidad Tecnologica Nacional
Buenos Aires (Argentina)
E-mail address: rbarca@frba.utn.edu.ar

13