A Full and Detailed Proof of the Prime Gap

Boundary
(Carson) Lam Kai Shun
British National Oversea

B.Sc (HKU).,

M.Com.Engine., M.I.T.E.,

University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Fellow of Scholar Academic Scientific Society, India

Email: h9361977@connect.hku.hk

sonsonshek@gmail.com
Abstract:
As in my previous two papers [2] & [3] about the boundary of the
prime gap still cause some misunderstanding, I here in this paper tries to
clarify those detailed steps in proving such boundary of the prime gap for a
contradiction. Hence we show that there is a need for the shift from the
line x = 0 to the line x = 0.5 as all of the zeta roots lie on it. However, NOT
all of the points on x = 0.5 are zeros as we may find from the model
equation that has been well established in [2].
The Proof for the Boundary Between a Prime Gap:
Consider the following equation for number theory of Riemann Zeta function ξ(1):

∞ ∞ ∞

( z − z i ) = ξ(1) = ∑ 1/n = ∏ ( 1− 1/ prime j ) ------------ (*)

−1
∏
i=1 n=1 j=1

By definition:

j+1 j −1
1
Pj+1 = ∑ 1/i = ∏ ( 1− 1/ prime i )− 1(1− )
i=1 i=1 Prime j+1

j +1 j
Also, Pj+1 = ∏ ( z − z j )/ [( ∏ ( 1− 1/ primei )− 1* ( 1− 1/ prime j +1 )−1)] -----------(*’)
i=1 i=1

j j
−1
( 1− 1/ prime j +1 )*Pj+1 = [∏ ( z − z i ) * (z - zj+1)/ ( ∏ ( 1− 1/ primei ) )]
i=1 i=1

If we first replace the primej+1 & primej in (*’) by Pj+1 , then we have:
j j

Pj+1 – 1 = ∏ ( z − z i ) *(z - zj+1) / Pj ------------- ( by definition of Pj = ∑ 1/i )

i=1 i=1

j j
Pj+1 = ( ∏ ( z − z i ) * (z - zj+1)/ ∑ 1/i) +1
i=1 i=1

j+1
But it is well known that ln ( j+1 ) ⩽ ∑ 1/i ⩽ 1+ln ( j+1 )
i=1

j j

( ∏ ( z − z i ) * (z – zj+1) / 1+ln ( j+1 )) +1 ≤ Pj+1 ⩽ ( ∏ ( z − z i ) * (z – zj+1) / ln ( j+1 )) +1

i=1 i=1

i i i j
But Pj = [ ∏ ( z − z j ) / ( ∏ ( 1− 1/ p j )− 1 )] or Pj = ( ∏ ( z − z j ) / ∑ 1/i )
j=1 j=1 j=1 i=1

----- (by definition of Pj and equation (*)),

 j j
i.e. (∏ ( z − z i ) / 1+ln ( j )) ≤ Pj ⩽ (∏ ( z − z i ) / ln ( j )), thus we have:
i=1 i=1

[( 1 / ln ( j+1 )) - (1 / ln ( j ))] ⩽ [( 1 / ln ( j+1 )) - (1 / 1+ln ( j ))] ≤ Pj+1 – Pj ⩽ [( 1 / ln ( j )) -

(1 / 1+ln ( j ))] ≤ [( 1 / 1+ln ( j+1 )) - (1 / 1+ln ( j ))]

Or [(1 / ln ( j+1 )) - ( 1 / 1+ln ( j ))] ≤ Pj+1 – Pj ⩽ [(1 / 1+ln ( j+1 )) - (1 / ln ( j ))]

----- (Equation (**)
2 ( x −1 )
By applying the Taylor approximation to both ln ( j ) and ln ( j+1 ) for the above
( x+1 )
equation (**), we may get:
1 1 1 1
( 2 j - 2 ( j− 1 ) ) . ≤ .Pj+1 – Pj . ⩽ . ( 1+ 2 j - 2 ( j−1 ) )
1+
j+2 j +1 j+2 j+1
2 2
j +3 j+2 5 j +7 j− 2
2 . ≤ .Pj+1 – Pj . ⩽ . 2
6 j −2 j 6 j −2 j − 4

By taking limit for j tends to infinity for both sides, we may have the boundary as
below:
1 5
. ≤ .Pj+1 – Pj . ⩽ .
6 6
Also,
[( 1 / ln ( j+1 )) + (1 / 1+ln ( j+1 ))] ⩽ [( 1 / ln ( j+1 )) + (1 / ln ( j ))] ≤ Pj+1 + Pj ⩽ [( 1 / ln ( j )) +

(1 / 1+ln ( j ))] ≤ [( 1 / 1+ln ( j )) + (1 / 1+ln ( j )) ] ----- (Equation (**’)

2 ( x −1 )
By applying the Taylor approximation to both ln ( j ) and ln ( j+1 ) for the above
( x+1 )
equation (**), we may get:
1 1 1 1
2j
+ .≤. Pj+1 + Pj .≤. +
2∗ j 2∗( j−1) 2∗( j−1)
1+ 1+
j+2 j+2 j+1 j+1
After simplifying, we may get:
Pj+1 + Pj = 6/5,
But it is well known that:
1
(1 – ½) (1 – 1/3) (1 – 1/5) … (1 – 1/primej)(1 – 1/primej+1)*ξ(1) = 1 + ∑
p / n for p> Prime n
1
i.e. (1 – 1/primej+1) = ( 1 + ∑ ) / [ξ(1)*(1 – ½) (1 – 1/3) (1 – 1/5) … (1 –
p / n for p> Prime n

1/primej)]

1
But ∑ tends to zero as Prime tends to infinity, thus
p / n for p> Prime n

(1 – 1/Primej+1) = 1/[ξ(1)* ∑ 1/i], or

i=1

1- 1/(ξ(1) * Pj) = 1/Primej+1, or

1/ [1- 1/(ξ(1) * Pj)] = Primej+1

i.e. (Pj)2 / [(Pj)2 – 1] = Primej+1

Primej+1 – Primej = {(Pj)2 / [(Pj)2 – 1]} - {(Pj-1)2 / [(Pj-1)2 – 1]

After simplifying, we may get:
Primej+1 – Primej = [-(Pj – Pj-1) (Pj + Pj-1)]
Hence, -(25/36) .≤.Primej+1 – Primej .≤. -(5/36)
Therefore, the difference (in boundary) between the two consective primes (or the
∞
1
prime gap) is bounded. However, it is well known that ∑ prime diverges, [1], for
i=1 i

all prime primeis to infinity which is obviously a contradiction. Thus, the equation
(*) is only true for the 0.5 + I*y as shown in my past paper named “The Quantized
Constants with Remmen’s Scattering Amplitude to Explain Riemann Zeta Zeros”.
Hence, there may be a need for ordinary x equals zero line to have a shift to the line
of x equals 0.5 in the Riemann Hypothesis. To advance a step, the Riemann
Hypothesis is thus proved for the truth that all of the roots of zeta function must lie in
the line x = 0.5 but NOT all points of x = 0.5 must be the roots of the Riemann Zeta
function as shown in my model of Riemann Zeros of my aforementioned paper [2].

Reference:
1. Dr.Trefor Bazett, Novenber, 2022, The Reciprocal Prime Series,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8emZWsdA8
2. Shun L.K. (2023) The Quantized Constants with Remmen’s Scattering Amplitude
to Explain Riemann Zeta Zeros, International Journal of English Language Teaching,
Vol.11, No.4, pp.,20-33, doi: https://doi.org/10.37745/ijelt.13/vol11n42033
3. Shun L.K. (2023) The boundary between the Prime Gaps and the Interchangeable
be-tween a Quantum Mechanics System & a Classical Chaos One, International
Research Journal of Pure and Applied Physics, Vol.10 No.1,
pp.16-23, doi: https://doi.org/10.37745/irjpap.13vol10n1623