3 ms·
Tao mentions in the post that H=16 has already been proven [1]. [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0508185 http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0508185
by ksrm 13y ago
Tao mentions in the post that H=16 has already been proven [1].
[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0508185 http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0508185
- apetresc 13y agoI don't think that's what he's saying. What Goldston et al. have proved is that Zhang's approach can't prove a bound any better than H=16 without major modifications, but it doesn't actually establish the H=16 bound. In principle, if the twin prime conjecture were only true for, say, H=20, that would still be consistent with both results.
- ksrm 13y agoNevermind, I saw "we prove that there are infinitely often primes differing by 16 or less" but missed the caveat "assuming the Elliott-Halberstam conjecture".