THE TWIN PRIMES CONJECTURE a Proof by Brian S. McMillan Some time during the middle of the 1600's, Pierre de Fermat discovered an induction format contextual proof for grouping prime numbers into 2 of 4 categories. The four categories are as follows: WHERE: n = some integer Even integer = 4n Odd integer = 4n + 1 Even integer = 4n + 2 Odd integer = 4n + 3 FOR: Some prime number P = 4n + 1 FOR: Some prime number P = 4n + 3 This means that all prime numbers must belong to either the (4n + 1) or (4n + 3) category. This also means that any two odd numbers which are separated by 2 can never be of the same category. All (4n + 1) series Primes are only once the sum of two perfect squares. While all (4n + 3) series Primes are never the sum of two perfect squares. The induction format is the most efficient method for any type of mathematical proof that there can ever be. For example: ___________________________________________________ FOR: Some integer 'n' and prime numbers P1 and P2 IF: 4n + 1 = P1 AND: 4n + 3 = P2 THEN: 4n + 1 + 2 = P2 = 4n + 3 SO: P1 + 2 = P2 = 4n + 3 ___________________________________________________ The last set of equations above completes the proof. This means that, for some prime number P = (4n + 1) there must be a different prime number P = (4n + 3). Fermat reasoned that: Since an even number times any number will yield an even number and any even number plus an even number will also be even, then (4n) must be an even number and (4n + 2) also, must be even. Because of this, there can be no restriction for n strictly based upon some integer 'n' over any other. Likewise, any even number plus an odd number will itself be odd. So... for any odd number (4n + 1) or (4n + 3), this must also apply. The only way that this proof may be refuted is to prove that (4n + 1) can never equal P or that (4n + 3) can never equal P, or more specifically that when P = (4n + 1) that P cannot equal (4n + 3) or vice-versa. I will periodically add to the tables shown below to eventually reach all the recurring patterns for prime number series. If there is a limited number of them, which there has to be if the above assertion is true. It would appear that the random character assigned to primes is because these patterns overlap one another from series to series. Since any odd number plus an even number will itself be odd, one might ask if there will always be prime numbers separated by multiples of 2 greater than 2 or of 2 raised to powers of 2 greater than 2... such as 2^2, 2^3, 2^4 etc. For example: For some integer 'n' and prime number set containing P IF: 4n + 1 = P AND: 4n + 1 + 2^1 = P THEN: 4n + 1 + 2^3 = P SO: 4n + 1 + 2^5 = P IF: 4n + 3 = P AND: 4n + 3 + 2^2 = P THEN: 4n + 3 + 2^4 = P SO: 4n + 3 + 2^6 = P For some integer 'n' and prime number set containing P IF: 4n + 1 - 2^1 = P AND: 4n + 1 = P THEN: 4n + 1 + 2^2 = P SO: 4n + 1 + 2^4 = P For some integer 'n' and prime numbers P1, P2, P3 and P4 IF: (4n + 3) = P1 AND: 4(n+1) +1 = P2 THEN: 4(n+1) -1 = P1 SO: 4(n+2) +1 = P3 HENCE: 4(n+2) +3 = P4 If the proof for the infinitude of primes has already been done using a reverse engineered, fundamental theorem of arithmetic style of argument, and Fermat himself did not include the "Twin Primes Conjecture" as an outstanding problem in mathematics. One must conclude that the subject of this proof must have been 'post Fermat' and that he did not consider it as one of the outstanding problems, because it may have been viewed as redundant. I have to admit that the human mind finds patterns more easily in objects of closer proximity. So singling out the separation of primes by units of 2 would itself be more human. But mathematics is no respecter of persons. So tha-tha-thats all folks! Signed: Brian S. McMillan... Lucky Man