P. 1
Ulam's Spiral Square Patterns Explained (Rev.)

# Ulam's Spiral Square Patterns Explained (Rev.)

4.0

|Views: 935|Likes:
This work demonstrates that the prime-loadings on the diagonals of Ulam's Spiral Square are real and not illusory; part of a new, evolving e-book
This work demonstrates that the prime-loadings on the diagonals of Ulam's Spiral Square are real and not illusory; part of a new, evolving e-book

See more
See less

01/23/2015

pdf

text

original

# Examining Certain Open Questions in Number Theory

and Solving Other Interesting Problems in Mathematics and Science

E F A B C

D E F A D

C D A B E

B C B C F

A F E D A

Albert H. deAprix, Jr. 2011

2

Preface……………………………………………………………………………………3

Part I: Mathematics Decoding the Prime Patterns on Ulam’s Spiral Square………...…………...……….6 Validating Hardy’s and Littlewood’s Conjecture F………………………..……….14 Generating Pythagorean Triples Using Only Side a……………………...…………24 The Pattern to Primitive Pythagorean Triples………………………………...…….32 Addendum to Pattern of Primitive Pythagorean Triples....…………………...……42 Goldbach’s Conjecture……………………………………………………………..…44 The Twin Prime Conjecture: Proven at Last.…………..……………………...…...62 Proving the Infinitude of 2k Primes…………(in progress)……………..………….xx

Part II: Science Xeno’s Paradoxes: Discovering Motion’s Signature At a Dimensionless Instant of Time……………………………..………….......77 Why Venus Is a Failed Home for Life, and its Significance ......…………………..86

Author’s Biographical Materials Author’s Resume…………………………………………………………………..…103

3

Preface

4 .

5 Part I: Mathematics .

set. The late Stanislaw Ulam (1909-84) sketched a spiral square of consecutive integers. the higher will be the density and . Prime-Loading Defied Explanation Upon discerning that the primes in his spiral square appeared to favor certain diagonals over others. At times. he was jointly credited with the Teller-Ulam design for thermonuclear weapons.6 Decoding the Prime Patterns on Ulam’s Spiral Square c. finding the correct pathway to their solution is merely a matter of visualization. He also originated the concept of nuclear pulse propulsion and devised the Monte Carlo method for solving mathematical problems using statistical sampling. and ergodic theories as well as algebraic topology. 2009 Seemingly insoluble problems. Eventually joining the Manhattan Project. Ulam went back to Los Alamos. are not always as difficult to resolve as they might seem. Figure I Ulam’s Spiral Square 100 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 99 64 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 74 98 63 36 17 18 19 20 21 44 75 97 62 35 16 5 6 7 22 45 76 96 61 34 15 4 1 8 23 46 77 95 60 33 14 3 2 9 24 47 78 94 59 32 13 12 11 10 25 48 79 93 58 31 30 29 28 27 26 49 80 92 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 81 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 Primes displayed in red Examples of seemingly favored diagonals Ulam was an exceptionally talented mathematician who had emigrated from his native Poland to the United States in 1938. where that government laboratory’s computer plotted out a much greater spiral array that still evidenced an inexplicable difference in prime-loading across the odd-number diagonals. Ulam’s mathematical interests spanned number. or at least those that initially appear to defy solution. Density is calculated as the number of elements per unit of measurement: the greater the average number of primes found per given unit of measurement. Mysteriously. during a boring presentation at a 1963 scientific conference. the primes in his square seemed to prefer certain odd-number diagonals over others. as is the case with the decoding of the prime number pattern in spiral squares. like that in Figure I. That prime-loading on the spiral square’s diagonals may be defined as differences in prime densities.

They have not. What is here termed. the number of elements in the layers thus follows . each layer has eight more elements than the layer underneath it beginning with eight elements. Moving outward. for reference purposes. though. appear on some diagonals with greater frequency than on others. the principal diagonal. but it will be apparent to the careful observer that orientation would not change the explanation for the patterns observed in prime-loading on certain diagonals. starting point (in this case 1 in base-10 or A in base-6). indeed. the direction that the diagonals are deemed to run will not matter even though the patterns that will be discussed here would appear a bit different if the spiral square were rotated 90o. Ulam’s Spiral Square can be conceived as a series of embedded squares formed about the initial. in the first square that surrounds the starting point.8 represented by the former of those two expressions while those comprising Column E are represented by the latter. running from 65 through 1 to 81. Moving outwards from that initial square. or integers. applied that knowledge to a visual representation of Ulam’s Spiral Square. the upper right (UR) and the lower left (LL). It actually does not matter which way Ulam’s Spiral is oriented. Converted Modularly A B C D E F A B C D E F F E F A B C D E F A B C E D E F A B C D E F A D D C D A B C D E F A B E C B C F E F A B C B C F B A B E D E F A D C D A A F A D C D A B E D E B F E F C B C B C F E F C E D E B A F E D A F A D D C D A F E D C B A B E C B C B A F E D C B C F B A F E D C B A F E D A A F E D C B A F E D C B Elements of the principal diagonal are highlighted in red Sample diagonal patterns are highlighted in blue The diagonals of the spiral square depicted in Figure I alternate between odd and even integers. Ulam’s orientation will be retained. The construction of Ulam’s Spiral holds the key to understanding why primes not only appear to favor certain diagonals but do. divides Ulam’s spiral into two halves. Figure II Ulam’s Spiral.

employing any one of the three other possible orientations. 16. however. The gaps between every third element will be explained moving upward to the right from the principal diagonal. the first jump. then jumping one element to the right to 12 on the second . it becomes necessary to determine how the gaps between every three elements on a given diagonal come to always be multiples of six. and doing so will leave eight unpaired elements in the outer one of the two adjacent squares. moving outward along its diagonal finds the sequence 1. The next move would follow that first embedded square around to 9 and then jump one to the right to 10. Ulam’s original alignment will be used.9 the progression 8. 3. Starting with 1 at the center of the spiral square. from 1 to 3 is two spaces. 13. 24. 91… Following the spiral pathway outward from the first element on the diagonal to the next three. but that choice is strictly arbitrary. 57. To understand how that happens. The same net effect. which is accomplished by moving one element to the right from 1 to 2 and then up one element to 3. 40… Figure III illustrates how those eight elements are added to each layer. before moving upward to 13. 31. While the spiral square could be oriented in any one of four positions. Because six (the base system in Figure II) and eight (the number of elements consecutively added to each embedded square of the spiral moving outwards) have a least common multiple of 24. which is the first element on the second embedded square. the same explanation would result. albeit with different numbers. numbers from an inner square can be paired with those in the next square heading outward. that LCM becomes critical to understanding how the prime density on the diagonals is real and not imaginary. could be accomplished by making a complete circuit of the first embedded square from 3 back around to 3. Embedding a smaller square immediately inside a larger square requires each side of the outer square to be two elements longer than each side of the inner square. 32. Figure III Ulam’s Spiral Embedded Squares 101 102 103 104 105 105 106 107 108 109 110 100 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 111 99 64 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 74 112 98 63 36 17 18 19 20 21 44 75 113 97 62 35 16 5 6 7 22 45 76 114 96 61 34 15 4 1 8 23 46 77 115 95 60 33 14 3 2 9 24 47 78 116 94 59 32 13 12 11 10 25 48 79 117 93 58 31 30 29 28 27 26 49 80 118 92 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 81 119 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 120 Embedded squares represented in alternating red and gray.

but switch has the valuable result of creating two steps following the circuit of the inner square that matches the two steps from 1-2 to 2-3. They repeat on every third diagonal in either the UR or LL halves of the square. that elements on the principle diagonal running from 5 to the upper left (5. Moving from 1 to 31 adds eight for square one and 16 for square two. Table III Base-6 Patterns on Ulam’s Odd Diagonals Lower Left ACA or AAC CCE or CEC AEE Upper Right ACA or CAA EEA ECC or CEC . which are squares of consecutive odd integers.10 square. Moving outward three elements along an upper right diagonal will mean moving outward three embedded squares.. That switches the jump from square one to square two from 10-27 to 13-30. the number of which can be calculated by multiplying the number of the square (numbering square 2-9 as one. from square one to square two. which will result in a multiple of the LCM of six and eight. the move upward from 30 to 31 remains the same. 10-25 as two…) by eight. hence the 0 value The same numbers result from moving from any element on the upper right portion of any embedded square outward. Each embedded square has a multiple of eight elements. constitute parts of the lower left portions of their embedded squares and therefore count in calculating diagonals that run towards the lower left portion of Ulam’s Spiral Square. The three jumps from 1 to square one. It must be remembered. Six will always be added to that figure to account for the three successive jumps to the next outermost squares. but doing it that second way has the advantage of aiding visualization of how multiples of eight come into play. Moving outward along a diagonal will thereby add multiples of six every three elements along that diagonal. as any three consecutive integers added together will constitute a multiple of three. 17. due to the same principles that cause the patterns to repeat on the odd-number diagonals. as Table II illustrates for three examples. 49…). The center of the principle diagonal (1) can be used in calculating diagonals in either direction. or 24 total. though. and from square two to square three adds six more to the total. The lower right-hand corners of the embedded squares (9. 37…) are part of the upper half of an embedded square and are part of the diagonals that move towards the upper right. Table III lists those patterns that are created on the odd diagonals. 25. The total number of steps does not change. Table II Calculating the Number of Elements Spiraling Outward Three Consecutive Squares From 1 to 31 First Square 0* Second Square 8 Third Square 16 Total 24 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 6 From 3 to 57 8 + 2 16 + 2 24 + 2 48 + 6 From 13 to 91 16 + 2 24 + 2 32 + 2 72 + 6 * 1 is not part of a square. Three consecutive embedded squares will have a multiple of 3x8 elements. then moving up one more to 13.

May 3. M. “Prime Spirals. pp.. Ulam.” American Mathematical Monthly. pp. http://sciencenews. .12 Historical References Gardner. M.L. Ivars.120-8.43-4.M.M.516-20. “An Observation on the Distribution of Primes.org/view/authored/id 34/name/Ivars_Peterson Stein. S. “A Visual Display of Some Properties of the Distribution of Primes. American Mathematical Monthly. M. “Mathematical Recreations: The Remarkable Lore of the Prime Number.” American.. M.74. (1967) v. (March. Scientific Peterson.71. and Ulam. Stein. 2002.210. and Wells.” Science News. 1964) v.B. S. pp. (1964) v.

The author undertook the solution of this problem even though it was similar to the spiral square because there are differences between it and the square. but the reverse is only partially resolved because Hardy-Littlewood trinomials do not necessarily generate straight rays from their outset. .13 Techniques There are times when analytical techniques developed to aid in the solution of one problem can be applied to the solution of another. The use of a modified base-6 in the resolution of the question about prime-loading in Stanislaw Ulam’s spiral square opened up possibilities with other problems in number theory. The validation of Conjecture F therefore required a little extra work. Hardy-Littlewood would have validated the conjecture that primes do favor certain diagonals in the spiral square. had he solved them in the reverse order. The following article was written in 2011 based upon research conducted on that topic in early 2011. One of the first that the author considered is Hardy-Littlewood’s Conjecture F. but that work was based upon the recognition that the modified base-6 employed by the author in the solution of Ulam’s patterns would also provide the explanation for the Hardy-Littlewood prime density conjecture.

Table I Converting Base-10 to Modified Base-6 Numbers A 1 7 13 19 25 B 2 8 14 20 26 C 3 9 15 21 27 D 4 10 16 22 28 E 5 11 17 23 29 F 6 12 18 24 30 . and vertical lines in Stanislaw Ulam’s Spiral Square.H. certain polynomial expressions possess a greater richness. The author’s previous article concerning apparent patterns to primes. and c are integers and a is positive. failing that. developed formulae for calculating the number of primes and the number of twin primes through given points along the line of natural numbers. 2011 Hardy’s and Littlewood’s Conjecture F may be considered a prequel to Ulam’s Spiral Square. Although the question is now moot. b. If proven. The author of this paper revealed why certain diagonals have greater prime densities than others in the Spiral Square in his 2009 article on decoding those apparent patterns. quite a lot of information has nevertheless been gathered about them. This paper will now blend the author’s recent work with Hardy’s and Littlewood’s conjecture to demonstrate why those early 20th Century mathematicians were correct in their theory regarding polynomials. that conjecture would provide one route for validating the apparent preferences primes seem to have for certain diagonals. which that eminent mathematician first created in 1963. or density. In 1923. The polynomials in Hardy-Littlewood take the trinomial form: ax2 + bx + c where a. it ultimately represents a diagonal on the spiral square while a positive value creates either a vertical or a horizontal line on the square. Table I illustrates how that conversion took place. but only the last digit for the base-6 numbers is shown. The author validated the reality of varying prime densities in the Spiral Square by first converting its base-10 numbers to a modified base-6. Where b is negative. horizontal lines. then Ulam’s structure must also have real differences in its prime densities. Although primes cannot be represented by any known mathematical expression that either generates all primes and nothing but primes or. nothing but primes. Number theorists have. simplifying the visual modularity of the analytical tool. Hardy and John Littlewood determined that. Their work on that topic is known as the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture F. among other aspects of their conjectures. Hardy and Littlewood believed that polynomial expressions could represent a wide variety of prime densities.14 Validating Hardy’s and Littlewood’s Conjecture F c. doing so provided the visual clues that led to the solution of the density question. Decoding the Prime Patterns on Ulam’s Spiral Square (deAprix. It is an interesting quirk in mathematical history how a pattern created during a boring lecture provided a tool for analyzing and validating an earlier conjecture. for example. 2009) demonstrates that primes can be arranged mathematically and visually in patterns without violating that bedrock principle of number theory. if such polynomials can be shown to have real differences in their prime densities and those differences can be explained. forty years after Hardy and Littlewood expressed formulaically what Ulam would express visually. of primes than other expressions and that the variations in those prime densities can be calculated relative to random probability. G.

D. which it cannot because the initial value is 41 and the second value is an increase of only two at that point.2x + 41. Something within the structure of those polynomial expressions must require those variations in prime densities. but at first it appears to jump around. One trinomial with an ostensibly high prime density is 4x2 . it has a propensity for generating primes. the initial value for the trinomial increases at a predictable rate as the value of x is steadily increased by one at each step. Validating the Polynomial Prime Density Conjecture If the density of primes in the set of natural numbers. the conjecture is validated because there will be relative differences between some polynomials. Figure I illustrates that point for the trinomial already noted as prime-rich. That has an important practical consequence in the validation of Hardy’s and Littlewood’s Conjecture F. which will be trinomials. Column C has only one prime: 3. the columns for base-6 numbers ending in B. but it does not begin that way. Table II Initial Values for 4x2 . Yet. but for large enough spans. Where x = 0. That will be where this inquiry begins. 3 is a good approximation for A and E. Those densities will never be exactly 3 because 2 and 3 fall within different sets ( B and C). To demonstrate why Hardy’s and Littlewood’s conjecture is correct. 4x2 . and F possess only one prime: 2. The progression ultimately follows a diagonal track. The remaining primes in their infinitude are confined to the columns for A and E. For x = 1. going to 43. In Table II. If differences are found within trinomials. the expression is simply equal to 41. as depicted in Figure I. trinomials’ prime-loading under Hardy-Littlewood can be explained in the same manner as that for the spiral square’s diagonal prime densities. 4x2 - . there are visible differences. then the average prime densities for A and E within that span will approach 3. one needs to show how and why different densities must exist. That means that while there may be considerable similarities between the HardyLittlewood Conjecture F trinomials and Ulam’s Spiral Square.15 From a quick visual inspection. All of the other numbers in those four columns are composites.2x + 41 x 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4x2 -2x + 41 41 43 53 71 97 131 173 223 281 347 421 Increase Over Previous Value 2 10 18 26 34 42 50 58 66 74 Primes in second column highlighted in red That eventually defines a diagonal in Ulam’s Spiral Square. the author can limit his discussion to one class of polynomials. heading off to the upper right of the spiral square. or any sufficiently large span of consecutive natural numbers. As Hardy-Littlewood was expressed in general terms that some polynomials had greater relative densities than others.2x + 41. As Table II illustrates. is 1.

The value of the expression now begins to accelerate. representing a + b from the trinomial. n + 2. the values obtained by substituting consecutive natural numbers for x in the expression yield an interesting result. in this case. Table IV details how that modularity works for 4x2 2x + 41.2x + 41. Table III displays how those values for the trinomial follow an E-A-E pattern when converted to the author’s analytical tool that springs from a modified base-6. The modified base-6 employed by the author increases by six for each cycle of the base while multiples of eight are inherent in the generation of the trinomial’s resulting values when the value of x is successively raised by one. very reminiscent to that discovered for diagonals in Ulam’s Spiral Square. eight (consecutive multiples of which. 2009).2.16 2x will be two. are added at each .2x + 41 on Ulam’s Spiral Square 324 323 322 321 320 319 318 317 316 315 314 313 312 311 310 309 308 307 257 256 255 254 253 252 251 250 249 248 247 246 245 244 243 242 241 306 258 197 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 182 240 305 259 198 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 182 239 304 260 199 146 101 100 261 200 147 102 262 201 148 263 202 149 264 203 150 265 204 151 266 205 152 267 206 268 207 269 208 270 209 271 210 153 154 155 156 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 99 64 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 74 98 63 36 17 18 19 20 21 44 75 97 62 35 16 5 6 7 22 45 76 96 61 34 15 4 1 8 23 46 77 95 60 33 14 3 2 9 24 47 78 94 59 32 13 12 11 10 25 48 79 93 58 31 30 29 28 27 26 49 80 92 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 81 91 132 181 238 303 90 131 180 237 302 89 130 179 236 301 88 129 178 235 300 87 128 177 234 299 86 127 176 233 298 85 126 175 232 297 84 125 174 231 296 83 124 173 230 295 82 123 172 229 294 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 171 228 293 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 227 292 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 291 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 Initial Values for Binomial Displayed in Red 157 158 213 276 272 211 212 273 274 275 The analysis may now proceed in the same manner employed to analyze the modularity of Ulam’s Spiral Square in the author’s paper on that subject (deAprix. adding eight to the previous increase to generate the next increase in the trinomial’s value. In each of those three progressions. Figure I Plotting Initial Values of 4x2 . Continuing with the trinomial 4x2 . consecutive natural-number values for x will be n + 1. if the initial value for x is set at n. and n + 3. The columns in Table IV detail the relationships between the initial ( n) through fourth consecutive values for x (n + 3) beginning with the first three whole-number values of x for the trinomial. or 4 .

In the case of 4x2 .2x cousin will have greater prime-loadings than progressions featuring only B.2x +4. ultimately changing it from a diagonal ray in Ulam’s Spiral Square. Because eight is added to the increase between consecutive values of the trinomial over the preceding increase. A and E have greater prime-loadings than the progressions of the other modified base-6 ending digits and that trinomial. in each case. increases accumulate which means that two is part of each succeeding increase and must be dealt with when exploring how the modularities mesh. The first of those trinomials.17 step as the value of x is increased by one) and six mesh together modularly to make every third value of the trinomial a member of the base-6 set defined by one of the six symbols designating the last digit of each number (as with either A or E). C. Although b’s value has been changed to a positive one. a multiple of six is also achieved after three consecutive steps of adding one to the whole-number value of x. D. like its . 2009)]. the trinomial’s values pair up modularly with modified base-6 ending digits (A through F). two is added to the difference between the trinomial’s value at each increase in x of one because that is the initial difference between x = 0 and x = 1. its progression in base-6 is also an E-A-E [although 4x2 + 2x + 41 starts off as E-E-A. a similar phenomenon is found on opposite sides of the main diagonal in the Spiral Square for some progressions (deAprix. 4x2 + 2x + 41 changes b from a negative to a positive value ( -2 to 2) in comparison with the trinomial examined above. or F progressions and should have greater . With all but two primes included within their progressions. Table III Converting the Initial Values of 4x2 -2x + 41 to Modified Base-6 Value 41 43 53 71 97 131 173 223 281 Base-6 E A E E A E E A E Table IV Calculating Differences between Values for 4x2 .2x + 4 Where n Is Increased by Three From 41 to 71 (n = 0 for 41) For Increasing Values of x from n to n + 1 from n + 1 to n + 2 from n + 2 to n + 3 Total 0(8) + 2 1(8) + 2 2(8) + 2 3(8) + 6 30 From 43 to 97 (n = 1 for 43) 1(8) + 2 2(8) + 2 3(8) + 2 6(8) + 6 54 From 53 to 131 (n = 2 for 53) 2(8) + 2 3(8) + 2 4(8) + 2 9(8) + 2 84 Four other trinomials are detailed in Table V. that is just a different starting point for the same two Es and an A pattern.

2x + 41.2x + 40 0 1 2 3 4 5 C. Value for X A. but a changes from four to two in the second of those two cases while c is even for both The change in a from four to two changes the rate of increase in the increases of the trinomial’s successive values from eight to four.18 densities than those progressions that mix the two prime-rich progressions with any of the four prime-poor ones. Table V’s second and third trinomials have negative b values. 4x2 . The change in c from odd to even has the very profound effect of changing all of the trinomial’s values from odd to even. 4x2 + 2x + 41 0 1 2 3 4 5 B. which in these two instances have no primes.2x + 36 0 1 2 3 4 5 D. like 4x2 . The base-6 representations of each of the two trinomials’ values will follow patterns like the previous (odd-value) trinomials. but no Table V Comparing Prime Loadings for Several Other Selected Polynomials Binomial.x + 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Expression’s Value for Given X 41 47 61 83 113 151 40 42 52 70 96 130 36 36 40 48 60 76 25 26 31 40 53 70 91 116 145 178 215 256 Primes highlighted in red Base-6 Representation E E A E E A D F D D F D F F D F F D A B A D E D A B A D E D . 2x2 . 2x2 .

The same pattern can also be found with the trinomials in Table V. 5x2 +3x + 36 x 0 1 2 3 4 5x2 + 3x + 36 5(0) + 3(0) + 36 5(1) + 3(1) + 36 5(4) + 3(2) + 36 5(9) + 3(3) + 36 5(16) + 3(4) + 36 Value 36 44 62 90 128 Increase Over Previous x 8 > 18 > 28 > 38 > 10 10 10 10 Rate of Increase 5x2 . c. decrease below) c. but would usually not result in trinomial values useful to the study of primes because those values would likewise be decimal or fractional. with eight being added to the increase over x = 1 at each successive step. Where x = 1. Thus the value for the trinomial in Table II increases by 2 at the first step and subsequently by 10. and 34. Those examples.3(0) + 36 5(1) . complex balancing would be necessary for the generation of primes. increases beyond the first step. The ensuing section takes on those tasks. it need only be shown that different densities arise and explain why they arise and how their structure leads them to have those different prime-loadings. it is not necessary to prove it in each and every possible case.3(3) + 36 5(16) . b.3(2) + 36 5(9) . 26. c represents the expression’s initial value. Returning to the introduction. governed as it is by a + b.3x + 36 x 0 1 2 3 4 5 B. In the Hardy-Littlewood trinomials. The Mechanics of Trinomial Values The following brief review of polynomial (in this case. 2a = 8.3(4) + 36 5(25) .3(5) + 36 Value 36 38 50 72 104 146 Increase Over Previous x 2 > 12 > 22 > 32 > 42 10 10 10 10 Rate of Increase . Referring back to Table II. 5x2 . Decimal or fractional values for a. trinomial) value mechanics helps with the visualization of the modularity of such expressions. and the changes within them. in cases where b is negative and greater in absolute value than a. and x are integers and a is positive. Table VI How Polynomial Values Increase as x Is Increased by Consecutive Integers A. As the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture regarding prime densities specifies that there will be different densities. That is a major step in validating that trinomials have different prime densities. In this case. c or x would generate values. increase at each step by 2a. a + b will equal the initial increase over (or. with the rate of increase in each trinomial’s value rising by 2a at each step for values of x > 1.19 primes can or will be generated. 18.3x + 36 5(0) . b. where x = 0. trinomials in the HardyLittlewood conjecture take the form: ax2 + bx + c where a. demonstrate that at least some trinomials create progressions in their values that vary in their prime densities.3(1) +36 5(4) .

As shown above. a + b also plays a role in the increase in value of trinomial expressions as x is increased. they only represent illustrative cases. Part B shows that there is no rate of change for increases in the value of x. seeming to show something and irrefutably demonstrating it are two different propositions. The parameters of the role of 2a as x is increased by successive whole numbers become evident through the derivation of an equation based upon the elements of the trinomial expression. The rate of change is 2. That derivation begins with a simple identity statement: . Table VII Genesis of the 2a Rate of Change Part A Increase in Values of x2 Increase in x2 Values as x Increases by Consecutive Integers 1 > 2 3 4 5 4 9 16 25 3 > 5 > 7 > 9 > Part B Increases in Values of x Increase in x Values as x Increases by Consecutive Integers 1 > 2 3 4 5 1 > 1 > 1 > 1 > 0 0 0 0 0 Rate of Change of Increase in x 2 2 2 2 2 Rate of Change of Increase in x2 x 0 1 x2 0 1 x 0 1 Tables VI and VII seem to show that 2a constitutes the major portion in the increases in value of trinomial expressions. It increases by 1 at each step. The two tables provide anecdotal evidence. If a > 1. both a and b contribute to the increase in value by being multiplied for successive steps beyond x = 1 for each trinomial. not irrefutable proof. as x2 may likewise be conceived of as 1x2. Part A in Table VII illustrates how consecutive squares increase in value. That generates the 2a rate of change in trinomials. that value for a is simply substituted for 1. However.20 5 5(25) + 3(5) + 36 176 48 Meanwhile.

Conventionally. The second component. but nothing is violated by employing (x . the role of which is here being investigated: (x .created by the author because he could not find a representation for cumulative addition in use elsewhere . it is just a different way of writing the expression which calculates the value of the cumulative addition. As the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture F speaks to some polynomial expressions having greater prime densities than the expected average. but the importance of writing the expression as (x .1)(x) 2 2 The expression (x . when it is combined with c. demonstrating that Conjecture’s truth for trinomials validates the Conjecture because some . a # following a number or algebraic expression will represent the cumulative addition of the successive natural numbers from 1 through that given number or expression inclusive). multiplied by the ever-increasing values of x.1) = (x . more commonly written as (x)(x + 1) .1)(x) = (x . or the cumulative multiplication of the consecutive natural numbers from 1 through x inclusive. generates the second value of the trinomial. both sides of the equation will be divided by x. and then multiplied by 2a. Although the symbol ‘ #’ is new .the concept of cumulative addition is not new. Using that symbol in an equation will help identify the process of cumulative addition in a larger equation.1)(x) = (x . quickly becomes the major contributor to the trinomial’s increase in value because it is multiplied by the cumulative addition of x .1)#] x ax2 +bx = (a + b)x + 2a[(x .1)#] x ax . shows that any increase over the constant c will always include 2a as an growing proportion of the trinomial’s increase over its initial value. where x = 1. is used to calculate the cumulative 2 2 addition of all consecutive natural numbers from 1 through n inclusive.1)(x) will be evident shortly. x represents n.a = 2a[(x .1). followed by multiplying both sides by x: ax + b = (a + b) + 2a[(x . (x .1) = 2a[(x . (a + b)x.1. However. 2a.1)# 2 x a(x . 2 One side of the identity statement above will be replaced with an expression that will represent cumulative addition (just as x! represents the factorial of x. c (where x = 0). is the result of two processes. c. a + b will continue to contribute to the subsequent values of the trinomial.1)(x) . The equation. as a whole.21 (x . The first.1)#] This equation now demonstrates that the increase over the initial value of the trinomial. beginning with c and continuing onward through infinity as x in ax2 + bx increases thus becomes predictable and can be plotted out as repeating sets of modified base-6 terms.1) to represent n as long as x then represents the natural number 1 greater than (x .1)# 2 Next. The set of values for the trinomial.1)#] x The expression (a + b) is then added to both sides of the equation.

(2009).H. and Littlewood. . however. Historical References deAprix.com/Al%20deAprix Hardy. because proving how and why trinomials have differing prime densities demonstrates the validity of Hardy and Littlewood’s conjecture without going through the infinite number of polynomial orders.E. Greater specificity can be achieved by using larger modified base systems. On the Expression of a Number as a Sum of Primes. the foregoing analysis of Conjecture F using base-6 does indicate that more specific density values could be obtained and it thereby enhances the likelihood that Hardy and Littlewood’s formula is accurate. Nonetheless. 2009) set density values for A through F.scribd. Acta Mathematica. 44: 1-70.” Examining Certain Open Questions in Number Theory. A modified base system could provide specificity on prime density only if it were infinitely large. Had Conjecture F been demonstrated correct first. The expression 2x + 3 will include all of the primes except for 2 while 2x + 2 will only include the prime 2. the reverse happened. Albert H. as it turns out. J. and others are prime-poor. Jr. but it does not provide absolute specificity for any span of values for a polynomial. the apparent prime patterns in Ulam’s Spiral Square could have been proven real as a spin-off of the Hardy-Littlewood proof. such as base-30 and base-210. The author’s modified base-6 system of analysis (deAprix. “Some Problems of ‘Partito Numerorum’. “Decoding the Prime Patterns on Ulam’s Spiral Square. https://www. as demonstrated by example above. The need to prove anything further is moot. G.” (1923). Hardy and Littlewood also developed an expression that could be used to calculate the ratio of the number of primes through a given x in a polynomial expression compared to what number would be expected from random number of that size. Modified base-6 helps demonstrate the accuracy of conjectures and initial impressions of prime densities. Hardy and Littlewood’s density calculations are therefore not contradicted by the density values for base-6.22 trinomials are prime-rich. though that is not commonly done). The differing prime densities also occur with binomials (which may be considered trinomials where a = 0. Calculating the Number of Primes in an Expression As part of Conjecture F.

number systems. They have served as a gateway for understanding geometry.23 Pythagorean Triples Pythagorean triples have always held a fascination for this author. Organizing triples on the basis of a enabled the author to more easily visualize new patterns in the data. II. through the construction of his three tables (I. It was not until about a dozen years ago that he completed a complete formula for the calculation of all PTs. but what is exceptionally interesting is the diverse ways in which they have proven such systems correct. and III in the succeeding article) to a system of organizing Pythagorean Triples and Primitive Pythagorean Triples (PPTs) into a format that leads in “The Pattern to Primitive Pythagorean Triples” to an algorithm that organizes all PTs and PPTs in a logical grouping by magnitude. One of the first problems with which the author dealt in high school involved the calculation of triples (or PTs). The key to all of that came out of realizing that the Pythagorean Theorem could be written as a2 = c2 . and even cosmology (the author hopes to include several papers on the latter two topics in this e-book before it is completed). . trigonometry.b2. The author added in his system in part because it offered another unique means of validating calculations using just one side and because it also led. Others have also devised systems for calculating triples using just one side.

The vision that an elegant solution awaits discovery continually reinvigorates the quest. or mathematical processes. solutions emerge only after many mathematicians have contributed insights over the years . Others will be nonprimitive. Dye and R. other than brute experimentation. 2n will be greater than n2 . and apparently had ways of calculating triples before Pythagoras became eternally linked to the process.W.H. In fact. Greek mathematicians did their work through geometry and understood the Pythagorean Theorem as a way of decomposing one square into two smaller ones. n2+1 For n = 2. such efforts have built up much of modern mathematics.D. as witnessed with Fermat’s Last Theorem. Babylonians were aware of the relationship a millennium before Pythagoras. errors. Pythagoras’ theorem was actually known before that Greek philosopher-mathematician made his debut in the sixth century B. Nickalls from England published an algorithm in 1998 [Dye and Nickalls] that would express a triple as: x. or those of any other human endeavor. would have made no sense to the ancients of either culture because algebra was unknown in the West until the Arabs borrowed it and decimal numeration from India. Along the way. n2-1. surveying.even centuries . with Mohammed ibn Musa alKhwarizmi’s early ninth century book Hisab al-jabr w’almuqabala setting forth the basics of algebra (al-jabr). and everything that Fermat’s classical problem has generated serendipitously. A modest increment in knowledge is being added here: algorithms. Several means. some results will be primitive triples. b = 2mn. that: a = m2-n2. that permit the calculation of all Pythagorean triples using only a from the relationship c2 = a2 + b2. and where m and n are of opposite parity (which means that one of them is even while the other is odd).24 Generating Pythagorean Triples Using Only Side a c. Pythagoras and the Babylonians [Hollingdale] possessed a three-part algorithm that generated an infinite series of triples where n is any positive integer greater than 1: 2n. and dead-ends may postpone success. 2009 Mathematicians function like clever detectives.E. including trigonometry. consumed by a passion for the quest. even though they did not have algebraic notation. Educators and students will be interested in the equations and the algorithms because their discovery illustrates how the organization of data can facilitate a problem’s solution.1. Fermat’s Last Theorem.C. False starts. m and n are positive integers that are relatively prime (having no common factor greater than 1). c2 = a2 + b2.1 will be the greater of the two quantities. which means that they are triples that have no common factor between all three that is greater than 1. The early Greeks also realized. The Pythagorean Theorem and Pythagorean triples have led to important contributions in mathematics. In the series of triples generated using either method. (x2-b2). But time and difficulties do not matter to mathematics’ devotees. R. but the mathematical investigator will labor onward. Oftentimes. otherwise n2 . (x2+b2) .of effort that may be required to master a given problem. have existed for calculating Pythagorean triples. its modern expression. piecing clues together until a complete solution emerges. or multiples of primitive triples. The former of the two algorithms will not generate all Pythagorean triples while the latter will do so. c = m2+n2 where m>n.

A close approach to the author’s system came in 1997. Simms.(c . whose formulae represented special cases of the current author’s general equations for generating b and c from a [Simms].(c . one of which would lead to the calculation of a triple by substituting that root into the expressions for the three sides of the right triangle.b)2 2 (c . Spezeski developed a method for deriving Pythagorean triples that produced a formula like the author’s. it is evident that the validity of the second equation (for c) hinges upon the validity of the equation for calculating b. the right-hand side of the equation is multiplied by another. with R.b) 2 (c .b)2 2b .25 2b That allowed them to set up the equation: x2 . the equation could be solved to produce roots.b)2 + (c .b) 2 Next.2bx .b) and c = a2 .b) From a cursory examination. W. publishing it in 2008 [Spezeski]. but he arrived at his equations using a different approach .which stands as testament to the adage that there may be many roads to the truth.(b2 + 2b) = 0 Specifying rules for the use of the equation in different mathematical situations.c) 2 b = (c + b) .b) 2 (c . different. Richardson.J.b) . That new algorithm for generating all Pythagorean triples uses two equations to calculate b and c from a: b = a2 .(c . That requires demonstrating how the equation for b was derived. as c is greater than b by the difference between the two numbers. but they require specifying a whole-number c-b difference and the author explains how that may be determined. That derivation begins with a simple identity statement: b = b One side of that equation can be multiplied by an equivalent of 1 without altering the statement’s equality: b = 2b 2 By next adding the equivalent of 0 to the right-hand side of the equation and applying the commutative property of addition to rearrange the order of the terms.b) b = (c + b)(c . who employed matrices to generate Pythagorean triples [Richardson]. (c . The author’s equations generate all Pythagorean triples using just one side of the right triangle.b) .(c . Another interesting approach was developed by B.(c . value that is also equivalent to 1: b = (c + b) . a more useful expression begins to emerge: b = 2b + (c .

b) c = a2 + (c .b).b.b) c = a2 .b)2 2 (c . as well as the sought-after triples. but it does not require knowledge of the values for either c or b.b) Digressing for a moment.b)2 + 2(c .b) 1 2(c . The absence of a common factor would result in the generation of decimal values for b and c.b)2 + (c . D and a must have a common factor(s) because 2d must divide cleanly into a2 . will make it clear how that must be done by focusing on primitive triples. Organizing Pythagorean triples into three types based upon the values of a and (c . The equation does employ c . Recognizing that the equation for b is valid.(c . Decimal values will also result when a and d have opposite parity.d2 and a2 + d2 for Pythagorean triples to result.b) At this point. The equations for generating b and c are valid for all possible values for right triangles including decimal and fractional values.b) or the equation for calculating b.d2 2d and c = a2 + d2 2d The equation for c now looks similar to the one employed by the ancients. and c and calculating the latter two sides employing a place constraints upon the values for d. 2(c . enables the mathematical detective to observe patterns in the primitive triples and develop algorithms for calculating them.b)2 2(c . and an arrangement of Pythagorean triples into three types.b). With the substitution of d for (c .b) c = a2 . which for simplicity will now be expressed as d (for difference).b) 2(c .b)2 + (c .b) . or subcategories. a2 may now be substituted into the equation for its equivalent to produce: b = a2 .26 2(c .b)2 2 (c . the two equations now become: b = a2 . and then factored. .b2 a2 = (c + b)(c . to yield: a2 = c2 .b) 2(c . though theirs used two numbers that were not a and d.(c .(c . the Pythagorean Theorem holds that: c2 = a2 + b2 The terms of the theorem may be rearranged. The student of number theory should recognize at this point that the equations derived for describing the relationships between a. b. again because the difference and sum of their squares must be cleanly divisible by 2d. the companion equation for calculating c may now be simplified a bit: c = a2 .(c .b) Knowing how to apply the equation to attain the desired end now becomes important.

27
The three types of primitive triples are illustrated in Tables I - III. Some of the triples in each of those tables have been highlighted in red; those are multiples of other triples and were included in the tables as placeholders to make the mathematical progression of triples clearer and to provide for the most effective illustration of the algorithms for calculating the primitives. Table I displays the primitive triples where a is odd (thus the Type O designation). The first dozen triples for the initial five values of d are included. At the top, d is set forth both as a whole number and as an expression, e.g. (1 . 52). In that expression, 1 is designated the multiplier and 5 is labeled the root (r); that distinction is made because the r will have an application in understanding the relationship between a and d. Through the operation of the equations for b and c, r will comprise a progression of the odd whole numbers from 1 through infinity. While it may seem unnecessary to list the multiplier in Table O, its inclusion provides for similar treatment for Type O and Type E (even) triples (for which the multiplier is 2). The a for the first triple for each permissible value for d must be equal to d + 2r. The values for a in each column then proceed by intervals that equal 2r. R or any factor of r if r can be factored, becomes the common factor that a and d must share. Values for a that do not share a common factor with r will therefore result in decimal values for b and c due to the equations that generate them from a. For Type O triples, then, a will be an odd multiple of r for a given d, provided that a > d. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, speaking through his famous fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes, observed that sometimes what is not perceived is more important than what is heard or seen. Loosely borrowing that concept from The Hound of the Baskervilles, certain nonprimitive triples, displayed in red, have been added to Tables I - III. They would not ordinarily be included in a listing of primitive triples, but their presence aids in the visualization of the relationships being discussed. Just as the absence of a barking dog solved the case for Holmes, the missing triples are a key to creating the new algorithms. The patterns to the primitive triples are much more difficult to spot in straight listings of primitive triples, like those published on websites like those of Rutgers, Clark University, and the University of Utah’s mathematics website, all of which the author has used upon occasion. Rutgers’ list of primitives puts primitive triples in order by the magnitude of side c [Rutgers]. The lists that the author has employed are very useful in providing the raw data needed for research, but they must be refined through a sorting process, like that at work in Tables I-III, before certain problems can be effectively investigated. Many researchers undoubtedly missed the relationship explored here because their data was not arranged in a format that facilitated their inquiries. A successful mathematical investigator may need to experiment with different data arrangements before selecting the most fruitful route for inquiry. The patterns to primitive triples are not truly clear until they been arranged in the three tables that the author employed in his research; those tables also assisted in the visualization of the formulae for b and c, making clear the relationship between a and d. Tables II and III set out the initial primitive triples where a is a multiple of 4. They are divided into two tables because there are slight differences between them that are better addressed by compiling the initial triples of each type separately from each other. Type E1 primitives have accompanying values for d whose roots comprise the set of all odd whole numbers, just as did the Type O primitive triples. Where, in Table II, n is the root for any given permissible value of d, every nth triple in the progression of Pythagorean triples for that value of d will be a multiple of some smaller-value triple, as {36, 27, 45} where d = 18 is a multiple of the primitive triple {4, 3, 5}. One of the important differences between Type O and Type E 1 primitives is that a begins at d + 2r for counting down the table’s columns to determine which are the n th Type O triples that are multiples. The same counting for a begins at d for Type E1’s, even though a = d would be impermissible for a Pythagorean triple because a2 - d2 would then equal zero, meaning that b would have no dimension and that a = c, which cannot be a true statement for any right triangle where c is the hypotenuse. While r equals the square root for d for Type O primitives, and could have been accurately labeled the square root, it is clearly not that for either Types E1 or E2 primitives; that is why the term ‘root’ and not ‘square root’ was used. For all three types of primitive triples, r is a factor of d, but it is not always a square root. The designation of r for root was made in preference to f for factor so as to not confuse the symbol with that for function. Factoring Type O values for d into 1 . r2 provides for identical treatment for all three types of primitive triples, eliminating the need for special-case handling for the Type O primitives. Factoring d into either 1 or 2 times r provides a tool that aids in the calculation of Pythagorean triples and in an understanding of their relationship as expressed through the two formulae derived by the author for b and c. R is the factor shared by both d and a. Examining the triple {9, 40, 41} from Table I, 9 is divisible by 3. That means that even though that triple may not be a primitive (or a placeholder in the table), there must be another triple in which a = 9. To discover what that triple other two members are, 81 needs to be divided by 3; that will yield 27. For this new triple, c - b = 3, which requires subtracting 3 from 27, which leaves 24. Dividing that by 2 sets b = 12. Adding back 3 (or d) sets c = 27, which generates the triple {9, 12, 15}. That triple does not appear in one of the three tables because it is neither a primitive triple (because it is a multiple of {3, 4, 5}) nor a nonprimitive

28
placeholder. In fact, none of the triples where d = 3 will be primitives. The process, though, does illustrate how triples may be calculated knowing just a and d. The primitive triples follow interesting patterns. In Table I, for example, all members of the r = 1 column are primitives, but where r = 3, every third member is a nonprimitive (or a trivial, as it is often called) while where r = 5, every fifth member of that column is a nonprimitive. Tables II and III exhibit other patterns. The columns continue downward infinitely while new columns are created to the right by infinitely adding two to r. All three tables help demonstrate that the number of primitives is infinite and that they follow clear patterns. One more thing may be said about Pythagorean triples: they may be comprised of numbers that are terminating decimals. Terminating decimals are merely whole numbers divided by some power of 10. For example, a2 Substituting and calculating, 0.52 0.25 0.25 = = = 1.32 1.69 1.22 = c2 b2

- 1.44 0.25

That is not really anything new, but it does serve as a helpful guide to those first starting to work with Pythagorean triples.

Table I Type O Primitive Triples d = 1 = (1 . 12) d = 9 = (1 . 32) d = 25 = (1 . 52) d = 49 = (1 . 72) d = 81= (1 . 92)

a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c 3 4 5 15 8 17 35 12 37 63 16 65 99 20 101 5 12 13 21 20 29 45 28 53 77 36 85 117 44 125 7 24 25 27 36 45 55 48 73 91 60 109 135 72 153 9 40 41 33 56 65 65 72 97 105 88 137 153 104 185 11 60 61 39 80 89 75 100 125 119 120 169 171 190 221 13 84 85 45 108 117 85 132 157 133 156 205 189 180 261 15 112 113 51 140 149 95 168 193 147 196 245 207 224 305 17 144 145 57 176 185 105 208 233 161 240 289 225 272 353 19 180 181 63 216 225 115 252 277 175 288 337 243 324 405 21 220 221 69 260 269 125 300 325 189 340 389 261 380 461 23 264 265 75 308 317 135 352 377 203 396 445 279 440 521 25 312 313 81 360 369 145 408 433 217 456 505 297 504 585 Author’s note: Triples displayed in red are not primitives. They were included as placeholders to illustrate the progression of values for a, b, and c

29

Table II Type E1 Primitive Triples d = 2 = (2 .12) a b c d = 18 = (2 .32) a b c d = 50 = (2 . 52) a b c d = 98 = (2 . 72) a b c d = 162 = (2 . 92) a b c 181 202 225 250 277 306 337 370 405 442 481 522

4 3 5 24 7 25 60 11 61 112 15 113 180 19 6 8 10 30 16 34 70 24 74 126 32 130 198 40 8 15 17 36 27 45 80 39 89 140 51 149 216 63 10 24 26 42 40 58 90 56 106 154 72 170 234 88 12 35 37 48 55 73 100 75 125 168 95 193 252 115 14 48 50 54 72 90 110 96 146 182 120 218 270 144 16 63 65 60 91 109 120 119 169 196 147 245 288 175 18 80 82 66 112 130 130 144 194 210 176 274 306 208 20 99 101 72 135 153 140 171 221 224 207 305 324 243 22 120 122 78 160 178 150 200 250 238 240 338 342 280 24 143 145 84 187 205 160 231 281 252 275 373 360 319 26 168 170 90 216 234 170 264 314 266 312 410 378 360 Author’s note: Triples displayed in red are not primitives. They were included as placeholders to illustrate the progression of values for a, b, and c.

and c. . 42) a b c d = 72 = (2 . 82) a b c d = 200 = (2 . They were included as placeholders to illustrate the progression of values for a. 62) a b c d = 128 = (2 .30 Table III Type E2 Primitive Triples d = 8 = (2 .102) a b c 221 244 269 296 325 356 389 424 461 500 541 584 12 5 13 40 9 41 84 13 85 144 17 145 220 21 16 12 20 48 20 52 96 28 100 160 36 164 240 44 20 21 29 56 33 65 108 45 117 176 57 185 260 69 24 32 40 64 48 80 120 64 136 192 80 208 280 96 28 45 53 72 65 97 132 85 157 208 105 233 300 125 32 60 68 80 84 116 144 108 200 224 132 260 320 156 36 77 85 88 105 137 156 133 205 240 161 289 340 189 40 96 104 96 128 160 168 160 232 256 192 320 360 224 44 117 125 104 153 185 180 189 261 272 225 353 380 261 48 140 148 112 180 212 192 220 292 288 260 388 400 300 52 165 173 120 209 241 204 253 325 304 297 425 420 341 56 192 200 128 240 272 216 288 360 320 336 464 440 384 Author’s note: Triples displayed in red are not primitives. b. 22) a b c d = 32 = (2 .

Makers of Mathematics.math. March.edu/~richardson/pythagoreantriples.W. “Rethinking Pythagorean Triples. 82.edu/ ~rsimms Spezeski.: New York.html Rutgers University. http://pvamu.rutgers. “Using Counting Numbers to Generate Pythagorean Triples. William J. 1989.html Simms. R.” http://www. pp. and Nickalls. Pp.H.D.31 Historical References Dye. edu/aam . Viking Penguin Inc.” www.math.wichita.edu/~erowland/ tripleslist-long. Vol. “Pythagorean Triples.clemson.math. 8-9. Hollingdale. 1998. “Primitive Integral Solutions to x2 + y2 = z2.” http://www. Bill.” Mathematical Gazette.” Applications and Applied Mathematics. Richardson. Stuart. “A New Algorithm for Generating Pythagorean Triples. Robert.86-91. R.

Tables in that format provide a good listing of PPTs under a given value for c. Clark. Primitive Pythagorean triples are those triples for which the GCD for the three sides is 1. No tables of primitive triples were readily available to the author when he began his work. Table I provides a sample listing of the first 15 PPTs listed by ascending value of c. the author examined primitive triples. but they unfortunately do not present their information in a manner that establishes an easily-visible relationship between the elements in the tables that simultaneously relates them to the overall pattern of Pythagorean triples and facilitates easy calculation of all successive PPTs in some uniform. 10} is not.32 The Pattern to Primitive Pythagorean Triples c. which has the advantage of combining multiple values for the legs with a given value for the hypotenuse. Table I Primitive Pythagorean Triples (listed by ascending value of c) c 5 13 17 25 29 37 41 53 61 65 73 85 85 89 97 a 3 5 8 7 20 12 9 28 11 33 48 13 36 39 65 b 4 12 15 24 21 35 40 45 60 56 55 84 77 80 72 . r > s > 0. 4. or GCD. This paper shares those tables and outlines the relationships between the triples in each table that would enable a researcher to expand their coverage. 2010 Introduction In his efforts to find a mechanism for generating Pythagorean triples using just one side of the triangle. Rutgers (Rutgers). however. so he devised tables of his own.s is odd. which has been the format of preference for tables of triples. They often present their triples by an ascending order of the hypotenuse’s value. 8. and Drexel are among the institutions of higher learning that have since hosted tables of primitive Pythagorean triples. of r and s is 1). rather than using two sides or employing the two-number algorithm known to mathematicians since ancient times (where the two whole numbers are of the form. The triple {3. ascending order. but they do not suggest how all triples might be related other than through the algorithm (presumably the r/s method) for their calculation. a primitive triple because its GCD is 2. and the greatest common denominator. r . The triple {6. 5} possesses the smallest values which constitute a primitive triple.

the difference between c and b in each table’s columns. and c. The most famous problem involving Pythagorean triples. all of the other columns have repetitions of the values for a found in . or PTs. will include all of the odd-number values of a that generate PPTs. as done with Table II. The algorithm will generate both primitive and nonprimitive triples.” Tables III through V present the author’s work in three tables that organize PPTs and certain placeholders. b. The elements of Pythagorean triples have been calculable using the r/ s relationship by stipulating: a = r 2 . The Tables of Primitive Pythagorean Triples Table III. The PPTs have been divided into separate tables for odd values (Table III) and even values (Tables IV and V) based upon the characteristics of a value the author defines as r. which is used to calculate d. the tables have been expanded modestly from his earlier paper in order to reveal how others may calculate the infinite progressions of PPTs with ease. is one such elegant expression. and simple manner.those right triangles for which the values of a.have held a fascination for mathematicians. simplicity is a critical component of elegance. it conveys the relationship between the three sides of a right triangle and will. c2 = a2 + b2. but again. They were included to illustrate the progression of values for a. The first column includes every odd number greater than one as a value for a (The integer one presents a special case . they will not be in order even if r and s follow an increasing magnitude format. A mathematical expression can be elegant when it represents a relationship in a clear. and c are all represented by whole numbers . s Method for Generating Pythagorean Triples (Listed by Ascending Order of r then s) r 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 … s 1 2 1 3 2 4 1 5 2 3 … a 3 5 15 7 21 9 35 11 45 40 … b 4 12 8 24 20 40 12 60 28 42 … c 5 13 17 25 29 41 37 61 53 58 … Author’s mote: Triples displayed in red are not primitives. Other work with PTs has seen several means derived for calculating a PT from just one side. b. consist of three whole numbers. in certain instances. was Fermat’s Last Theorem.see below). either by hand or by computer. b. concise. set forth in this article’s opening paragraph. which postulated that the relationship between the three sides a.33 In mathematics. Pythagorean triples .s2 b = 2rs c = r2 + s2 Following the requirements for r and s. including the author’s “Generating Pythagorean Triples Using Only side a. and c can never be duplicated with whole number values for any power greater than two. in its infinite extension either rightward or downward. Table II Using the r. which can be calculated using a three-part algorithm ( r/s above). The Pythagorean Theorem. the classic algorithm will generate all of the PTs.

52) d = 49 = (1 . Nonprimitives can be generated from the PPTs in Table I by multiplying any triple in the table by any natural number greater than one to yield infinite series of nonprimitives that begin with every PPT and nonprimitive in the table’s array of triples or any of the triples that result from horizontal or vertical extensions of the table. finding the first nonprimitive at {27. 36. so there will not be any nonprimitive triples in the column. For any number in the count that is a multiple of any prime factor of the r for that column. 92) d = 121 = (1 . 3 is the only prime factor of 3.34 column one. but it does serve as the basis for calculating the members of its column’s infinite set of triples. there are no prime factors of r. 9}. 72) d = 81 = (1 . constitutes what the author terms the identity statement. from which d is calculated in the three tables. In calculating d from r in Table III. Table III Type O Primitive Triples d = 1 = (1 . and c. There are also a number of nonprimitives. displayed in green. 112) … a 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 … b c a 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 93 b 0 8 20 36 56 80 108 140 176 216 260 308 360 416 476 c 9 17 29 45 65 89 117 149 185 225 269 317 369 425 485 a 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 b 0 12 28 48 72 100 132 168 208 252 300 352 408 468 532 c 25 37 53 73 97 125 157 193 233 277 325 377 433 493 557 a 49 63 77 91 105 119 133 147 161 175 189 203 217 231 245 b c a b c 81 101 125 153 185 221 261 305 353 405 461 521 585 653 725 a b c 121 145 173 205 241 281 325 373 425 481 541 605 673 745 821 0 1 4 5 12 13 24 25 40 41 60 84 112 144 180 220 264 312 364 420 61 85 113 145 181 221 265 313 365 421 0 49 16 65 36 85 60 109 88 137 120 156 196 240 288 340 396 456 520 588 169 205 245 289 337 389 445 505 569 637 81 0 99 20 117 44 135 72 153 104 171 189 207 225 243 261 279 297 315 333 190 180 224 272 324 380 440 504 572 644 121 0 143 24 165 52 187 84 209 120 231 253 275 297 319 341 363 385 407 429 160 204 252 304 360 420 484 552 624 700 Author’s note: Triples displayed in red are not primitives. b. but it is so done in order to establish as consistent as possible procedures for the three tables. They were included as placeholders to illustrate the progression of values for a. They may be found in the columns of each table by following specific counting algorithms. but they will have different values for d as there are multiple sets of triples for some of the odd-number values for a. 12) d = 9 = (1 . but it does aid in the generation of triples. 0. that arise in all three tables. the triple will be a nonprimitive. . Each column in Table III begins with what the author terms an identity statement. each column’s value for r. That identity statement is not a triple. where a = d and c = a. As explained in the author’s earlier paper on calculating triples. making the values for d an infinite progression of odd perfect squares. increases by two per column moving infinitely rightward. The table’s first row. In column two. 45}. displayed in red. the elements of which are all cleanly divisible by 3. it is not a triple. the count proceeds downward in each column beginning with the first triple below the identity statement. so nonprimitives will be found by counting downward from the identity statement {9. it may seem unnecessary to multiply r2 by 1. 32) d = 25 = (1 . In Table III. In column one.

but it does serve as the basis for calculating the members of its column’s infinite set of triples. The table is expanded from the author’s earlier version (in Generating Pythagorean…) by setting the difference between successive values for a in each column at 2d rather than 4d. too. all of the triples so added are nonprimitive. The table’s first row. constitutes what the author terms the identity statement. 52) a 50 60 70 80 90 b c d = 98 = (2 . . They were included as placeholders to illustrate the progression of values for a.12) a 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 … b c d = 18 = (2 .35 Table IV Type E1 Primitive Triples d = 2 = (2 . 112) a b c 242 265 290 317 346 377 410 445 482 521 562 605 650 697 746 … 0 2 3 5 8 10 15 17 24 26 35 48 63 80 99 120 143 168 195 324 37 50 65 82 101 122 145 170 197 326 0 50 11 61 24 74 39 89 56 106 242 0 264 23 286 48 308 75 330 104 352 374 396 418 440 462 484 506 528 550 135 168 203 240 279 320 363 408 455 504 48 55 73 54 72 90 60 91 109 66 112 130 72 135 153 78 84 90 96 102 160 187 216 247 280 178 205 234 265 298 100 75 125 110 96 146 120 119 169 130 144 194 140 171 221 150 160 170 180 190 200 231 264 299 336 250 281 314 349 386 Author’s note: Triples displayed in red are not primitives. it is not a triple. displayed in green.32) a 18 24 30 36 42 b 0 7 16 27 40 c 18 25 34 45 58 d = 50 = (2 . 72) a 98 112 126 140 154 168 182 196 210 224 238 252 266 280 294 b 0 15 32 51 72 95 120 147 176 207 240 275 312 351 392 c 98 113 130 149 170 193 218 245 274 305 338 373 410 449 490 d = 162 = (2 . and c. but they. 92) a 162 180 198 216 234 252 270 288 306 324 342 360 378 396 414 b 0 19 40 63 88 115 144 175 208 243 280 319 360 403 448 c 162 181 202 225 250 277 306 337 370 405 442 481 522 565 610 d = 242 = (2 . b. serve as placeholders for better visualization of the progression of the primitives.

and c for the t-format with a part of the author’s three-table revised format (r-format). it is not a triple. Once a pattern has been discovered. a hint of pattern to c. The table’s first row. therefore. which must have r as a common factor in order to produce PTs. they too follow easily detected patterns. constitutes what the author terms the identity statement. where x at this early stage may equal 0. with a few negative steps thrown in. displayed in green. as explained in the author’s earlier paper (deAprix). The values of b and c then increase by increasing steps of +4.. b. 82) a 128 144 160 176 192 208 224 240 256 272 288 304 320 336 352 b 0 17 36 57 80 105 132 161 192 225 260 297 336 377 420 c 128 145 164 185 208 233 260 289 320 353 388 425 464 505 548 d = 200 = (2 . b. the values for a all proceed by increments of +2. 42) a 32 40 48 56 64 b 0 9 20 33 48 c 32 41 52 65 80 d = 72 = (2 . B in the t-format meanwhile tends to jump around. all resulting from the values for a and d. They were included as placeholders to illustrate the progression of values for a. 22) a b c d = 32 = (2 . with both b and c increasing by the same amount at each step because the value for c . Examining just the triples in Table III’s first column. 1. but none for a or b in the t-format. A has even more apparent variability to it.b (or d) is held constant within each column. In that column. but it does serve as the basis for calculating the members of its column’s infinite set of triples. it is evident that organization by a creates reproducible patterns. There is. When switching over to the r-format. While the other two tables follow different increments for increasing the values for their a. 122) a b c 288 313 340 369 400 433 468 505 544 585 628 673 620 769 820 . C in the traditional format proceeds in jumps of 4x. 2. Comparison of Presentation Formats To bear out the author’s contention that the hypotenuse-based traditional format (t-format) of ascending values of c does not easily lend itself to analysis. or 3 without any apparent intermediate-term patterns to the multiple of four involved..36 Table V Type E2 Primitive Triples d = 8 = (2 . and c. 8 0 8 12 5 13 16 12 20 20 21 29 24 32 40 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 … 45 60 77 96 117 140 165 192 221 252 53 68 85 104 125 148 173 200 229 260 0 72 13 85 28 100 45 117 64 136 85 108 133 160 189 220 253 288 325 364 157 200 205 232 261 292 325 360 397 436 288 0 312 25 336 52 360 81 384 112 408 432 456 480 504 528 552 576 600 624 145 180 217 256 297 340 385 432 481 532 72 65 97 80 84 116 88 105 137 96 128 160 104 153 185 112 120 128 136 144 180 209 240 273 308 212 241 272 305 340 Author’s note: Triples displayed in red are not primitives. and c elements. 62) a 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 b c d = 128 = (2 . b. Table VI compares the progression of a. a wealth of patterns suddenly appears. prediction becomes easier and data can be generated employing simple calculations or a computerized algorithm.102) a 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 b 0 21 44 69 96 125 156 189 224 261 300 341 384 429 476 c 220 221 244 269 296 325 356 389 424 461 500 541 584 629 676 d = 288 = (2 . .

b.7 3 .8 R-Format (Type O Primitives. for example. result directly from the author’s derivation of the formula for calculating triples using a. all three tables (each represented by its own column in the chart) will share an identical characteristic while in others.1 13 . c} to be a Pythagorean triple. and they could also be used to expand the tables. but they are only the briefest portion of an infinite array of primitives. setting c any lower than d would mean that b would have a negative length.1 29 . If c is increased by at an appropriately greater rate than a from that point onward. Chart I has certain properties that must be understood before employing them to expand Tables III-V.3 6 5 5 15 . An infinite expansion of the tables would not. Setting a at d (Row 1) for all three tables created what the author termed the identity statement: that then required c to equal a (Row 2) because d = c . as c must be because it is the hypotenuse. Rows 5 and 6. then a = c and the geometric figure is reduced from a triangle to a line.4 . the infinite number of nonprimitives that would not appear in any of the three tables can be generated by multiplying the members of any .3 19 . 13}. However.35 23 3 26 b 8 3 9 . That leads to duplication of some sets. . and c from Preceding Values T-Format Change in: c 8 4 12 4 8 4 12 8 4 8 12 0 4 8 a 2 3 . such as {5. For {a. then b > 0 and a right triangle results. the natural-number value by which c must increase compared to a must be determined. If b = 0. from which the Pythagorean Theorem arose. though. Chart I outlines a selection of relationships within and between the rows and columns of triples in Tables III-V. An examination of the rows in Chart I uncovers a strong similarity across the columns. but the relationships set forth in Chart I will be sufficient to expand any of the trio either rightward or downward. just the Type O primitives will share an identical feature. Column 1) Change in: a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 b 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 c 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 triple: while it is customary for b to represent the larger of the two legs. The chart has eight rows.or of all . 12.triples in the tables by successively larger whole numbers.17 22 15 . 5. generate all PTs. which would not be possible in Euclidian plane geometry.8 . 13} and {12. The tables also do not require that b be larger than a for any given Table VI Comparing T-Format with R-Format Progressions of a. Other relationships exist. b. either to the right for ever-greater values of d or downward for increasing values of a while holding d constant. with each examining one property or characteristic across the three tables. in some instances.b. Such duplications have been retained in the tables so that the progressions in each column may mathematically flow unimpeded down the columns or across the rows.37 Tables III through V provide a good introduction to PPTs. they are set up in a manner that easily facilitates their infinite expansion. Those relationships all follow from the author’s derivation of the algorithm for calculating a triple using just side a and choosing a value for d following specified rules. an unbroken progression of the triples following the author’s format actually requires a to be the larger leg at the top of all but one of the three tables’ columns.

2 + 4 … +2r b = a2 . begin counting down each column starting with the first triple below the identity statement .38 Through examination of the formula the author derived for calculating PTs using a and specifying d. r2) where r = 1 + 0.any triple for which the count is a multiple of two or of any prime factor of r is not primitive For PTs in Table V a=d an identity statement.a thereby becomes two times a perfect square (Column I has no prime factor for r). r2) where r = 1 + 0. add twice the square of that count to a to obtain c. c . add the square of that count to a to obtain c. IV.d2 + d 2d . d = (2 . it becomes clear how a must progress in value in each column of the three tables in order for valid PTs to be created.d2 2d c=b+d Begin counting down each column from the first triple below the identity statement. 1 + 4 … +2r b = a2 . c . add the square of that count to a to obtain c.any triple for which the count is a multiple two or of any prime factor of r is not primitive Progression of ‘a’ down a given column following the identity statement Value of ‘b’ Value of ‘c’ Progression of ‘c’ expressed in terms of ‘a’ . 2 + 2.a thereby becomes a perfect square (Column I has no prime factor for r). begin counting down each column starting with the first triple below the identity statement . where c = a and b = 0 progresses as the squares of all odd numbers times 1.d2 2d c=b+d Begin counting down each column from the first triple below the identity statement. 1 + 2.a thereby becomes a perfect square Begin counting down each column starting with the first triple below the identity statement . it establishes what c’s value must be and it reveals why c must exceed a by margins linked to perfect squares.d2 2d c=b+d Begin counting down each column from the first triple below the identity statement. 1 + 4 … +2r b = a2 . r2) where r = 2 + 0.down a given column following the identity statement Locating the nonprimitives in each column c = a2 . d = (1 . d = (2 . Chart I Characteristics of Primitive Pythagorean Triples in R-Format Progressions (Comparing Tables III. and V) Characteristic Initial ‘a’ value in each column First row Value of ‘d’ by columns For PTs in Table III a=d an identity statement. In the author’s formula. c .any triple for which the count is a multiple of any prime factor of r is not primitive For PTs in Table IV a=d An identity statement. 1 + 2. where c = a and b = 0 progresses as the squares of all even numbers times 2. where c = a and b = 0 progresses as the squares of all odd numbers times 2.

d2 + d 2d where r may then be substituted for d.namely ai which is the initial value that a assumes in the identity statement at the head of each column in the two tables. as 2r2 = d: c = a2 . working with the value of ai. and xr. That process begins with the author’s formula. As r must be multiplied by 2 then 4 added to any xn in any column in Table IV or Table V to calculate the next xn in that column. . That means.r2 + 2r2 4 cn = 2r2 + xr + x2 4 Because ai = 2r2.4r4 + 2r2 4r2 Squaring the binomial representing an yields: cn = ai2 + 2aixr + x2r2 . Dividing any square of an even number by four will produce a perfect square. designated as cn. the value of a for the specific PT that includes cn: cn = (ai + xr)2 . for which x is the number of times r must be added to ai to bring it up to an. x will always be an even number when calculating the difference between xi and any given xn. Table VIII illustrates that principle. c = a2 .4r4 + 2r2 4r2 4r2 4r2 4r2 Simplifying and rearranging the terms: cn = 4r4 + 4r2xr + x2r2 .39 Beginning with Tables IV and V.4r4 + 2r2 4r2 2 Next substituting 2r for ai and dividing the fractional value into its components: cn = 2r2 + 2(2r2)xr + x2r2 . which is defined as the value for a in the appropriate identity statement for each column in the table.4r4 +2r2 4r2 4r2 4r2 4r2 cn = r2 + xr + x2 . The square of any even number ( e2) may be decomposed into two roots that can be designated 2 and y. 2r2 + xr can be replaced with an in the equation to produce: cn = an + x2 4 That means that any given cn is equal to the corresponding an plus the quantity x2.(2r2)2 + 2r2 2(2r2) Now c can be written as cn to mean any specific c while a2 is divided into two components . that formula for calculating c can be used to determine the numerical value of each successive c. in each of Table IV’s and V’s columns.

which would be a perfect square because half of an even whole number must be either a smaller even whole number or an odd whole number. Table IX Results of Dividing Squares of Even Numbers by Two e 2 4 6 8 10 e2 4 16 36 64 100 2 8 18 32 50 e2/2 (2. Table VIII Results of Dividing Squares of Even Numbers by Four e 2 4 6 8 10 e2 4 16 36 64 100 e2/4 1 4 9 16 25 The difference between any cn and its corresponding an in Table IV or Table V will therefore be a perfect square. as it does in Tables IV and V. r2. e2 = (2y)(2y) and through the commutative property of multiplication.16) (2.25) Matrices for All Pythagorean Triples .9) (2. Table IX illustrates. e2 = (2)2(y)2 which means that division by 4 would leave y2. Because d in Table III equals 1 .40 e2 = (2y)2 which can also be written as. and that perfect square will be the square of the counting order of that PT below the identity statement in its column. r2 rather than 2 .4) (2. any given cn will exceed its corresponding an by twice a perfect square x2/2 when following the same calculation process used to derive x2/4 for Tables IV and V.1) (2.

Table VI provides one illustration of the order introduced by the author’s work. Table X offers an insight into another: permissible values for d. whether primitive or nonprimitive (though all of the primitives will be located on the original two-dimensional surfaces that gave rise to the three-dimensional matrices).” Applications and Applied Mathematics. Others may wish to combine them if creating their own tables or computerized databases. Still others have created different types of relationships. such as uniquely generated triples and co-triples that reverse a and b (Spezeski). “Generating Pythagorean Triples Using Only Side a.rutgers. not an essential step. but they are needed for full appreciation of the progression of. The primary advantage of the revised format created by the author lies in the order provided by that newer format. or pattern to. could be combined. “Rethinking Pythagorean Triples. edu/aam . Table X Permissible Values of d (for d < 200) for Primitive Triples 1 32 121 2 49 128 8 50 162 9 72 169 18 81 200 25 98 References deAprix. William J. creating solid cubes comprised of the data points that represent every triple imaginable. Tables IV and V.com/ %20deAprix Al Rutgers University.” http://www. visual synchronization of the triples between the three tables.math. Ultimately. as in Table X. Considerable duplication will exist because the three tables include a fairly large proportion on nonprimitives. They are not shown with as great an appreciation for their value in calculating triples even when they are placed in numerical order. Three-dimensional matrices may be calculated from Tables III-V by multiplying every PT in the tables . each table can be expanded into a three-dimensional matrix. creating thereby the basis for the trigonometric functions that flow in unbroken streams. All of the nonPythagorean triples that also form right triangles will be found in between the Pythagorean triples.scribd. Jr.by the succession of all whole numbers beginning with two. which are not even evident in the data appearing in Table VI for traditional display formats. “Primitive Integral Solutions to x2 + y2 = z2. with ever-more minute detail being achieved through ever-longer decimal sequences that disappear into the dust of infinity. which include all the primitive triples that have even values for r. with the combined matrices including all the Pythagorean triples. but the author has kept them separate to permit easy.edu/~erowland/triple list~long. All of that constitutes a natural progression from the need to create a simple matrix that would include all of the primitive Pythagorean triples in the ascending order of their magnitude.41 As all PPTs will fall within the infinite bounds of one of the three tables.” http://www. they could be removed using the counting algorithm outlined above for identifying the nonprimitives in the columns of each table. Albert H.html Spezeski. The author’s three tables of PPTs put the data into a working format that enables further investigation into relationships that contribute to the calculation of primitive and nonprimitive triples. http://pvamu. Every nonprimitive is a multiple of some primitive.primitive and nonprimitive alike . triples. all triples may be calculated from them. but doing so is a personal preference.

but it does serve as the basis for calculating the members of its column’s infinite set of triples. They were included as placeholders to illustrate the progression of values for a. b. c where c is the hypotenuse and a. . Combined Table IV-V Type E Primitive Triples d = 2 = (2 x 12) a 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 … b 0 3 8 15 24 c 2 5 10 17 26 d = 8 = (2 x 22) a 8 12 16 20 24 b 0 5 12 21 32 c 8 13 30 29 40 d = 18 = (2 x 32) a 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 b 0 7 16 27 40 c 18 25 34 45 58 d = 32 = (2 x 42) a 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120 128 136 144 b 0 9 20 33 48 65 84 105 128 153 180 209 140 273 308 c 32 41 52 65 80 97 116 137 160 185 242 241 276 305 340 d = 50 = (2 x 52) a 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 b c d = 72 = (2 x 62) … a 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 b c 0 50 11 61 24 74 39 89 56 106 75 96 119 144 171 200 231 264 299 336 125 146 169 194 221 250 281 314 349 386 0 72 13 85 28 100 45 117 64 136 85 108 133 160 189 220 253 288 325 364 157 200 205 232 261 292 325 360 397 436 35 37 48 50 63 65 80 82 99 101 120 143 168 195 324 122 145 170 197 326 28 45 53 32 60 68 36 77 55 40 96 104 44 117 125 48 52 56 60 64 140 165 192 221 252 148 173 200 229 260 55 73 72 90 91 109 112 130 135 153 160 187 216 221 280 178 205 234 229 298 Author’s note: Triples displayed in red are not primitives. 2013 One of the author’s advantages in presenting his work as a developing e-book is the ability to add to or correct anything previously published. b. That combined table is herewith presented for readers. b. It has been suggested to the author that Tables IV and V from pp. it is not a triple. 35-36 be combined into one table for the even values of a in the infinite set of triples designated as a. and c.42 Addendum to the Patterns to Primitive Pythagorean Triples c. and c are whole numbers. constitutes what the author terms the identity statement. The table’s first row. displayed in green.

43 Structural Analysis Solving certain problems in mathematics require first attaining an understanding of the underlying structure of the number system before a paradigm may be constructed that leads to such a problem’s solution. The author’s modified base-6 analytical tool that he used in his work on Ulam’s Spiral Square and the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture F found application in his study of Goldbach. but the complex structure he discovered yielded a complicated explanation. . or set. or – as they author likes to visualize them – hurdles that paired potential prime pairs must surmount to be primes that add to consecutive even natural numbers. He would prefer a more elegant solution to the problem. In attempting to tackle this challenge. The easiest way to visualize the process of surmounting the barriers to creating new paired primes for successive numbers is to picture a tower of ornamental water pools in a garden: the top pool must first fill before water is free to flow down into the second-highest pool and then into successively lower pools. of even natural numbers. The author apologizes to the reader for the rather complicated presentation. which was not actually devised initially by Goldbach. but there are higher-ranking priorities at the moment. Instead. the water is permitted to flow into the next lower pool in the tower. Such is the case with Goldbach’s Conjecture. Once a pool is filled. which the author first completed in 2002 but modified slightly in 2009 for independent internet publication. that hints that other problems may be waiting out in mathematical limbo that might benefit from its application to them. He would like to attempt a further simplification in the not-too-distant future. it sets up barriers. the author first investigated the problem’s structure before proposing a solution to it. The water serves as an unending – or infinite – supply of numbers – that flow through the barriers. The author found that raising the hurdle barriers well above those that do exist still fails to eliminate a certain minimal number of prime pairs for each family. The solution does not tackle the Conjecture directly. The author already has another problem’s resolution in which he employed that modified base tool.

2009 In 1742 Christian Goldbach conjectured that every odd natural number greater than 6 was the sum of three primes. mathematically speaking. Historically. however. Euler. and assaults on the problem employing probability analysis indicate that it is more than extremely unlikely that the Conjecture is invalid due to some case far down the number line.” [Prime Glossary] Ivan Vinogradov proved in 1932 that all sufficiently large enough odd integers can be written as the sum of three primes. but that eminent mathematician could neither disprove it nor devise a proof for it. but no one has been able to prove Goldbach’s Conjecture in the general case. Table I Numbers of Prime Pairs Adding to Given Even Natural Numbers N No. Current work includes the use of supercomputers to partition primes using advanced algorithms.44 Goldbach’s Conjecture c. Pairs 46 4 48 5 50 4 52 3 54 5 56 3 58 4 60 6 62 3 64 5 66 6 68 2 70 5 72 6 74 5 76 5 78 7 80 4 82 5 84 8 86 5 N No. Goldbach was not even the first to recognize the problem. Euler’s recasting of Goldbach’s Conjecture in its more commonly known form leads to the original conjecture because 3 can be added to any every even natural number starting with 4 to generate every odd natural number beginning with 7. Number theorists have meanwhile demonstrated the Conjecture’s validity up to at least 4x1014 [Prime Conjectures]. but Paul Erdos suggested that “it is better that the conjecture be named after Goldbach because. the relationship is not at all direct. Rene Descartes discovered the even natural number version of the problem before Goldbach penned his letter to Euler. but even a vanishingly small probability that such a number exists means that it could well exist. as 5+2+2=9. Pairs 2 0 4 1 6 1 8 1 10 2 12 1 14 2 16 2 18 2 20 2 22 3 24 3 26 3 28 2 30 3 32 2 34 4 36 4 38 2 40 3 42 4 N No. that variability would seem to make a proof more difficult to construct. An examination of just the first 66 even natural numbers reveals that while the number of prime pairs that sum to the members of a series of even natural numbers generally increases as the magnitude of those numbers increases. Pairs 90 9 92 4 94 5 96 7 98 3 100 6 102 8 104 5 106 6 108 8 110 6 112 7 114 10 116 6 118 6 120 12 122 4 124 5 126 10 128 3 130 7 . Descartes was infinitely rich and Goldbach was very poor. Goldbach sent his conjecture to Leonhard Euler. recast the conjecture in its more widely known form: that every even natural number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes.

that the number of paired primes could drop back to zero for some yet unexamined even natural number lurking somewhere in the dark regions beyond 4x1014. Assignment of Natural Numbers to Six Sets A simple operation can distribute the natural numbers into six sets. D. ONPs may both be primes. That observable variance in the number of prime pairs that add to just the first few even natural numbers out of the infinite total leads to the possibility. odd-number pair. however miniscule. Though primes create their own unique progression and cannot be generated in their infinite succession by any known mathematical expression without the inclusion of numerous composites. The following analysis of the Conjecture will reveal the mechanisms that govern the number of prime pairs that sum to any given even natural number. the assignment of all natural numbers to the six sets defined by x + 6n segregates 2 and its composites into Sets B. are segregated from the odd numbers. with 1. 4. 2. into Sets A and E. patterns can be imposed upon them. A series of operations or manipulations will be arbitrarily performed in this analysis that will reveal how and why the number of paired primes summing to any series of ENNs varies. 3. which are not also composites of 3. 5. An ONP will be any pair of odd natural numbers that add to a given ENN. labeled A through F. which include only the prime 2 for which all subsequent even numbers constitute composites. then it could be determined whether or not the number of prime pairs could ever drop to zero. That isolates all other primes and their odd composites. prime pair. Uncle Petros & Goldbach’s Conjecture by Apostolos Doxiadis. and PP. The simplest of such imposed patterns results when the even numbers. ONP. the novels two publishers. That frustration served as the basis for a 2000 novel. and 6 designated as the first members of those sets in that counting order and the remaining natural numbers through infinity being assigned to those sets in similar counting order on the basis of 6n + x where x is the initial member of the set. or one member of the pair may be a prime while the other is a composite. Table II Assignment of the Natural Numbers to Six Sets A 1 7 13 19 25 … B 2 8 14 20 26 … C 3 9 15 21 27 … D 4 10 16 22 28 … E 5 11 17 23 29 … F 6 12 18 24 30 … Because 6 is a composite of 2 and 3. a few abbreviations will be used throughout this article to represent frequently employed terms: ENN will represent even natural number. to be constructed that will demonstrate that every ENN greater than 2 has at least one set of PPs that sum to it. 2002. offered a \$1 million prize for a valid proof of the Conjecture provided that it was submitted by March 15. The first five members of each set are set forth in Table II. . For simplicity. thereby concentrating the infinite remainder of primes in a set that encompasses only half of the natural numbers. or model. If an underlying rule or mechanism governing the number of paired primes that sum to a given even natural number could be discovered. both may be composites. Faber and Faber and Bloomsbury Publishing. A PP will only consist of two primes that sum to a given ENN. and F and 3 and its odd composites into Set C. The resulting information will then enable a paradigm.45 44 3 88 4 132 9 The Conjecture’s intractability has been a considerable frustration to professional and amateur mathematicians.

2 and n-2 paired. Under this arrangement. Paired numbers in the upper cell are then examined to determine if the summing pairs for an ENN include AA. Primes that are paired in this fashion can be relatively easily observed and counted to yield the total number of prime pairs that add to any given ENN. one EE pairing per upper cell will result. As sets A and E (from Table II) contain all of the primes except for 2 and 3. With all possible upper cells having six rows because all of the natural numbers belong to one of the six sets. or AE/EA match-ups. EE. there are two prime pairs that sum to the number: 3 and 17 plus 7 and 13. being a composite of 2. If. or FF. For 20. the set of pairs of natural numbers that sum to any given ENN can be arranged in dual vertical columns. though clearly not absolute trend is evident in Table V. the patterns will repeat through infinity. EE. however. the pairing designation for Nx/2 will control the pattern of pairings across the two columns for each ENN by serving as the starting point for the ascending right-hand column for each ENN. and with the first number in the left column for each pair of summing numbers starting with 1 which belongs to Set A. there will be an AE plus an EA pairing in each upper cell. Each ENN in the horizontal set for AA. the entire set of summing pairs through n/2 and n/2 are aligned visually. 20 from Table III would belong to set D and the DD pairings. and AE/EA pairings is six greater than the ENN to its immediate . The right-hand column will begin at the bottom with n/2 and continue upward through n-1. EE. that number being determined by how many times 6 divides into Nx/2 exclusive of any remainder. The six possible pairing designations for any Nx/2 can be AA. DD. and so forth. BB. CC. That general. There will be only one bottom cell for a given ENN. but there can be anywhere from zero (where Nx equals from 1 to 6) to an infinite number of upper cells (for an infinitely large ENN). which rearranges the number of paired primes for each ENN from Table I into a new format based upon A and E pairings. If the paired natural numbers that sum to each ENN are replaced with their modular set designations of A through F (from Table II) for six consecutive ENNs (labeled as N 1 through N6 in Table IV below). is divisible by 2 without remainder).46 Next. those ENNs that have AE/EA pairings ought to have a greater potential for paired primes than those ENNs that have either AA or EE pairings. three patterns of pairings emerge due to the manner in which the summing pairs were aligned mechanically. Table III Division of a Representative ENN into its Component Summing Pairs 20 + + + + + + + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 primes are noted in red With 1 and n-1 paired. That process is illustrated in Table III for the ENN 20. If Nx belongs to either Set B or E. with the left-hand column starting at the top with 1 and continuing downward through n/2 (which will be a whole number because every ENN. Because there are only six set memberships possible for Nx/2 (which are A through F). Whenever Nx/2 is a member of either Set A or D. Nx/2 belongs to either Set C or F. one AA pairing per upper cell will result due to the modular pattern to the pairings.

Table IV Possible Pairings and the Resulting Group Memberships for Nx/2 I N1 AA BF CE DD EC FB II N2 AC BB CA DF EE FD III IV N3 N4 AE AA BD BF CC CE DB DD EA EC FF FB V N5 AC BB CA DF EE FD VI N6 AE BD CC DB EA FF AE BD CC DB EA FF immediate upper cell (duplicated by any cells yet higher) AA AC AE AA AC BB BD BF BB CC CE CA DD DF EE bottom cell Table V Number of PPs by A and E Pairings Pairings Number of Prime Pairs AA (2-128) 0 1 2 2 3 2 2 EE (4-130) 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 AE/EA (6-132) 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 5 3 4 6 3 5 6 2 5 6 5 5 7 4 5 8 5 4 9 4 5 7 3 6 8 5 6 8 6 7 1 0 6 6 1 2 4 5 1 0 3 7 9 The total number of AA. for example. IV. EE. or V from Table IV.47 left. Table V thereby reveals that some of the variability of PPs is due to the format of the A and E pairings. for AA. 14…through infinity. The number of AA and EE pairings equals the number of upper cells for each ENN plus the number of pairings (0 or 1) found in the bottom cell for the ENNs belonging to Groups I. the set runs 2. 8. and AE/EA pairings for each ENN from 2 through 132 can be substituted for the data in Table V to produce a useful pattern. II. . The number of AE/EA pairings equals two times the number of upper cells plus the number of pairings (1 or 2) found in the bottom cell for the ENNs belonging to Groups III or VI from Table IV.

like the number of odd-number pairings for ENNs. +1. Even-number pairs were not included in this table and its companion tables that shortly follow because such pairings are irrelevant as only 2+2=4 has any bearing upon the Conjecture’s validity and because their exclusion makes each of the three tables a bit more readable. it. there will always be at least one odd Nx/2 between AE/EA pairings and alternating AE/EA pairings will end up with two.1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 128) EE (4. with the number being reduced from 132 in this table and for Tables IX and XII due to space considerations. +1 … which. too. also plays a role in analyzing Goldbach’s Conjecture. or a prime plus a composite.0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 130) AE/EA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 (6-132) 0 1 6 6 1 2 7 6 1 3 7 7 1 4 8 7 1 5 8 8 1 6 9 8 1 7 9 9 1 8 1 0 9 1 9 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 11 11 22 The total number of pairings displayed in each data cell in Table VI consists of match-ups that include two primes. How the Number of PPs Is Determined Table VII sets forth the ONPs for each ENN from 6 through 90 that have AE/EA pairings. The number in each of those data cells sets an upper limit for the total possible number of PPs for a given ENN except for 4 (for which 2+2=4) and for cases where 3 is paired with another prime (such as 3+5 =8 or 3+97=100). +1. This upper limit not only helps make the pattern of PPs clearer. That third column (except for 6. The quantity of the odd-number pairings for successive ENNs in Table VII increases by the pattern +1. . all due to the mechanical way each ENN had its pairings set up. +2 … because one pair is added whenever Nx/2 is odd but not when N2/2 is even. Since every third ENN has AE/EA pairings. which is the special case 3+3=6) also follows a progression. two composites. Column four subtracts column three’s results from the figures in column two to yield remainders. Table VIII displays the ONPs for each ENN with AE/EA pairings in column two. +2. +0. also results from the mechanical way the natural number sets and the summing pairs for ENNs were created. Column three then lists the number of ONPs that have at least one composite of 3 in any given pair. in this case +0.48 Table VI Total Number of A and E Pairings Pairings Number of A and E Pairings. by ENN AA (2.

all of which are composites of 5. That effect becomes noticeable with 90 and 120. but the larger the prime. In column five every fifth ENN. Another. composites of larger primes do not usually make up all of the pairings lost by any smaller prime that is a factor of a given ENN. With 3. Variation in the numbers of PPs becomes substantially a function of the location of composites in one column versus the location of primes in the other. a new factor comes into play due to the manner through the columnar pairings were created. and 11. If a given ENN is a composite of a particular prime (or primes). It also holds true for the composites of the larger primes involved with larger ENNs. the less obvious the process because larger primes have fewer composites for any given ENN.49 Table VII Odd-Number Pairings for ENNS with AE/EA Pairings. That happens for every prime’s composites where the square of that prime is smaller than a given ENN. 7. for which the AE/EA also have CC pairings. That means more PPs result. but that is not apparent due to the Table VIII’s brevity. only every third ENN is a composite of 3. for example. have composites of 5 paired against each other. The existence of those remainders ever-so-slightly lowers the ratio of ONPs knocked out of contention as PPs by composites of 3. But. as can be observed in Table V. dividing 3 into any of the others leaves a remainder of two or four. the composites of that prime (or primes) will be paired against each other and will only bar that prime (or those primes) from matching up with a larger prime to form a PP. as with the match-ups of 3’s composites one-third of the time. However. The same thing happens with composites of 7 for every seventh ENN and with composites of 11 for every eleventh ENN. This then yields a higher remainder in column six and ultimately a greater number of PPs in most cases. which reduces the total number of ONPs with composites of 5 in them. That is the same basic process that occurred when there were CC pairings. variation occurs because every prime does not divide without remainder into every ENN. 6 through 90 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 1 5 1 11 1 17 3 3 3 9 3 15 5 7 5 13 7 11 9 9 1 23 1 29 1 35 1 41 1 47 1 53 1 59 1 65 1 71 1 77 1 83 1 89 3 21 3 27 3 33 3 39 3 45 3 51 3 57 3 63 3 69 3 75 3 81 3 87 5 19 5 25 5 31 5 37 5 43 5 49 5 55 5 61 5 67 5 73 5 79 5 85 7 17 7 23 7 29 7 35 7 41 7 47 7 53 7 59 7 65 7 71 7 77 7 83 9 15 9 21 9 27 9 33 9 39 9 45 9 51 9 57 9 63 9 69 9 75 9 81 11 13 11 19 11 25 11 31 11 37 11 43 11 49 11 55 11 61 11 67 11 73 11 79 13 17 13 23 13 29 13 35 13 41 13 47 13 53 13 59 13 65 13 71 13 77 15 15 15 21 15 27 15 33 15 39 15 45 15 51 15 57 15 63 15 69 15 75 17 19 17 25 17 31 17 37 17 43 17 49 17 55 17 61 17 67 17 73 19 23 19 29 19 35 19 41 19 47 19 53 19 59 19 65 19 71 21 21 21 27 21 33 21 39 21 45 21 51 21 57 21 63 21 69 23 25 23 31 23 37 23 43 23 49 23 55 23 61 23 67 25 29 25 35 25 41 25 47 25 53 25 59 25 65 27 27 27 33 27 39 27 45 27 51 27 57 27 63 29 31 29 37 29 43 29 49 29 55 29 61 31 35 31 41 31 47 31 53 31 59 33 33 33 39 33 45 33 51 33 57 35 37 35 43 35 49 35 55 37 41 37 47 37 53 39 39 39 45 39 51 41 43 41 49 43 47 45 45 prime pairs designated in red The same process is then repeated in Table VIII for the composites of 5. though more modest. That also happens with .

1 ENN 2 ONPs 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 108 114 120 126 132 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 27 29 30 32 33 Table VIII How the Number of PPs Are Derived for ENNs with AE/EA Pairings 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pairs Remainder Pairs Rem Pairs Rem Pairs Rem With With With With Comp Comp Comp Comp Of 3 Of 5 Of 7 Of 11 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 6 6 6 6 4 8 8 2 3 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 12 10 11 12 13 16 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 6 7 7 9 10 7 9 9 11 12 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 6 7 7 9 10 7 9 9 11 12 10 10 11 Adj For 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 12 PPs 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 8 9 7 8 8 10 12 10 9 . The number 1 is a “unit. It should also be noted that when composites are paired for an ENN. The interplay of these patterns produces the variability found in column twelve of Table VIII. each composite will be counted as a composite of the smallest prime which is a factor of that composites (35. That reduces by one the number of PPs for every ENN that is 1 greater than a prime.50 CC pairings. it behaves like a composite when paired with a prime. One more factor that plays a role in the variance of the number of PPs must likewise be noted. which is the total number of PPs for each of the table’s ENNs.” not a prime or a composite. PPs can only include primes. But in every case. being counted as a composite of 5 and not 7) when counting up the number of composites to calculate the remainder at any given step in the calculation of the number of PPs for each ENN. such as with 41 for 42. so 1 is never part of a PP. because it is not a prime. the existence of remainders for any of the primes that have squares less than an ENN lowers the ratio for those composites slightly. for example.

3 does not get paired with composites for every ENN. generally resulting in the higher number of PPs for AE/EA match-ups seen in Table V. 91 would not have knocked out that ONP as a PP because doing that would already be credited to the composites of 5. and others like it. however. the members of Set C are not paired against each other as they were for ENNs with AE/EA pairings but rather against members of Sets E and A respectively. unlike with the AE/EA pairings. which is 30. because it only knocks out 3 for the ENN 4. That only happens when the composite of a larger prime pairs up with a smaller prime.0%.51 Pairings with the composites of a given prime on occasion seem to exceed the expected limit that should exist for the ability of that prime’s composites to be paired with primes as summing pairs. unlike in Tables VIII and X. composites of 7 should not account for more than 2/7ths of the remainder from column six in Table VIII (rounded. This adds to the variance by increasing the number of PPs by 1 beyond what would be expected for those ENNs that have AA or EE pairings. composites of 7 pair up with three primes from the remainder of 10 for the ENN 96. 5 is knocked out by 91. CC pairings reduce the impact of composites of 3. Knocking out 5 as part of a potential PP thereby raises the number of remaining pairs in column six with which the composites of 7 are paired. occurs due to the arrangement of the smaller primes and composites in the summing pairs. Tables IX and X for AA pairings and Tables XI and XII for EE pairings repeat the analytical process from Tables VII and VIII. it will always be paired with a member of Set C for ENNs that have EE match-ups. As 1 is a member of Set A. In the case of 96. so it creates a PP whenever a given ENN= Px+3. In these cases. Only 3 in Set C is prime so those CE and CA pairings reduce the total number of PPs that result from the pairings in comparison with the ENNs that have AE/EA match-ups. but 5 is a member of the prime-composite family for 5. . However. so had 5 been a composite instead of a prime. as when 91 is paired with 5 for 96. so 1 has virtually no impact on the number of PPs in Table XII. However. For example. That seeming contradiction. 28.6%).

52 Table IX Odd-Number Pairings for ENNs with AA Pairings. 8 through 86 8 17 35 14 1 13 3 11 5 9 7 7 20 1 19 3 17 5 15 7 13 9 11 26 32 38 44 50 1 49 3 47 5 45 7 43 9 41 11 39 13 37 15 35 17 33 19 31 21 29 23 27 25 25 56 1 55 3 53 5 51 7 49 9 47 11 45 13 43 15 41 17 39 19 37 21 35 23 33 25 31 27 29 62 1 61 3 59 5 57 7 55 9 53 11 51 13 49 15 47 17 45 19 43 21 41 23 39 25 37 27 35 29 33 31 31 68 1 67 3 65 5 63 7 61 9 59 11 57 13 55 15 53 17 51 19 49 21 47 23 45 25 43 27 41 29 39 31 37 33 35 74 1 73 3 71 5 69 7 67 9 65 11 63 13 61 15 59 17 57 19 55 21 53 23 51 25 49 27 47 29 45 31 43 33 41 35 39 37 37 80 1 79 3 77 5 75 7 73 9 71 11 69 13 67 15 65 17 63 19 61 21 59 23 57 25 55 27 53 29 51 31 49 33 47 35 45 37 43 39 41 86 1 85 3 83 5 81 7 79 9 77 11 75 13 73 15 71 17 69 19 67 21 65 23 63 25 61 27 59 29 57 31 55 33 53 35 51 37 49 39 47 41 45 43 43 1 25 1 31 1 37 1 43 3 23 3 29 3 35 3 41 5 21 5 27 5 33 5 39 7 19 7 25 7 31 7 37 9 17 9 23 9 29 9 35 11 15 11 21 11 27 11 33 13 13 13 19 13 25 13 31 15 17 15 23 15 29 17 21 17 27 19 19 19 25 21 23 prime pairs designated in red .

For 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 12 PPs 2 8 14 20 26 32 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80 86 92 98 104 110 116 122 128 1 2 4 5 7 8 10 11 13 14 16 17 19 20 22 23 25 26 28 29 31 32 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 4 5 4 6 7 6 6 6 7 9 7 8 7 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 6 5 5 4 4 6 7 6 5 5 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 6 5 5 4 4 6 7 6 4 4 0 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 2 5 4 5 4 3 5 6 6 4 3 .53 Table X How the Number of PPs Are Derived for ENNs with AA Pairings 1 ENN 2 ONPs 3 Pairs With Comp Of 3 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 4 Remainder 5 Pairs With Comp Of 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 4 3 2 4 4 5 6 Rem 7 Pairs With Comp Of 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 8 Rem 9 Pairs With Comp Of 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 Rem 11 Adj.

10 through 88 10 19 37 55 16 1 15 3 13 5 11 7 9 22 28 34 40 1 39 3 37 5 35 7 33 9 31 11 29 13 27 15 25 17 23 19 21 46 1 45 3 43 5 41 7 39 9 37 11 35 13 33 15 31 17 29 19 27 21 25 23 23 52 1 51 3 49 5 47 7 45 9 43 11 41 13 39 15 37 17 35 19 33 21 31 23 29 25 27 58 1 57 3 55 5 53 7 51 9 49 11 47 13 45 15 43 17 41 19 39 21 37 23 35 25 33 27 31 29 29 64 1 63 3 61 5 59 7 57 9 55 11 53 13 51 15 49 17 47 19 45 21 43 23 41 25 39 27 37 29 35 31 33 70 1 69 3 67 5 65 7 63 9 61 11 59 13 57 15 55 17 53 19 51 21 49 23 47 25 45 27 43 29 41 31 39 33 37 35 35 76 1 75 3 73 5 71 7 69 9 67 11 65 13 63 15 61 17 59 19 57 21 55 23 53 25 51 27 49 29 47 31 45 33 43 35 41 37 39 82 1 81 3 79 5 77 7 75 9 73 11 71 13 69 15 67 17 65 19 63 21 61 23 59 25 57 27 55 29 53 31 51 33 49 35 47 37 45 39 43 41 41 88 1 87 3 85 5 83 7 81 9 79 11 77 13 75 15 73 17 71 19 69 21 67 23 65 25 63 27 61 29 59 31 57 33 55 35 53 37 51 39 49 41 47 43 45 1 21 1 27 1 33 3 19 3 25 3 31 5 17 5 23 5 29 7 15 7 21 7 27 9 13 9 19 9 25 11 11 11 17 11 23 13 15 13 21 15 19 17 17 prime pairs designated in red .54 Table XI Odd-Number Pairings for ENNs with EE Pairings.

produces the variance in the number of PPs observed in Table I. with the rest of that set consisting of the odd composites of 3. and F comprise the even numbers. only matchups of Sets A. or 2 and all of its composites. The only prime that belongs to Set C is 3. and E become relevant to the problem except for the special case of 2+2=4 involving Set B. C.55 Table XII How the Number of PPs Are Derived for ENNs with EE Pairings 1 ENN 2 ONPs 3 Pairs With Comp Of 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4 Remainder 5 Pairs With Comp Of 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 6 Rem 7 Pairs With Comp Of 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 8 Rem 9 Pairs With Comp Of 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 Rem 11 Adj. however. which involves a number of factors. but it does not resolve the question of whether or not cases exist which invalidate Goldbach’s Conjecture. The complicated process. Sets B. has emerged from the examination of the structure of the summing pairs that will enable a final paradigm to be constructed that will reveal why no invalidating cases exist. When the natural numbers are assigned to one of the six sets designated A through F. D. For 1 12 PPs 4 10 16 22 28 34 40 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 88 94 100 106 112 118 124 130 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12 13 15 16 18 19 21 22 24 25 27 28 30 31 33 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 8 9 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 6 6 7 6 6 7 1 1 1* 2 0 2 2 0 2 3 0 3 2 0 2 4 0 4 3 0 3 4 0 4 3 0 3 4 0 4 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 4 0 4 5 0 5 6 0 6 6 0 6 7 0 7 6 0 6 5 0 5 7 0 7 *Special case of 2 + 2 = 4 Reviewing How PPs Are Created The foregoing discussion illustrates how prime pairs are mechanically generated. When members of Set . Critical information.

Goldbach’s Conjecture would be invalid if the supply of primes ran out at some point. EE pairings are created. every Pyth composite of Px in a given set will also be a composite of P y counting from the first appearance of such a composite in whichever progression of numbers (all natural numbers. 49. 9. and 15. for example that 105. That means that two successive odd composites of any prime greater than 3 cannot be members of the same set. 43. all odd composites of 3 are confined to Set C. For example. the density of the composites is the critical concern because as the density of primes thins out. and each set of natural numbers that have been designated A through F will be a composite of P x. 37. This is all made possible because counting order was chosen as the basis for assigning the natural numbers to their sets. every fifth composite of 3 and every third composite of 5. for those ENNs that have prime pairs that result form AA pairings. That says. an odd composite of Px that is three odd composites greater than another composite of Px will be in the same set as that smaller one because 6P x is divisible by 6 without remainder.00 for the ratio of composites to all natural numbers beyond any given point because the supply of primes is infinite. and 55. If it belongs to either Set A or Set D. increases but that density of composites is ultimately stopped from attaining a value of 1. which is a composite of both 5 and 7 is 7 odd multiples of 5 from 35 and 5 odd multiples of 7 from 35. Three successive odd composites of any given prime likewise greater than 3 must be members of three different sets because 6 cannot divide without remainder into 4Px. If primes were to run out at some point along the infinite number line. as with 25. . Meanwhile. and E due to the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. using Set A as an example. which means that they are divisible without remainder by both P y and Px. The odd composites for all other primes meanwhile rotate through Sets A. The only exception to that rule occurs when a given ENN is three greater than a prime so that 3 gets paired with another prime. which with 3 constitute the members of Set C of the natural numbers. as a consequence. C. That does not happen. the density of the composites. 20. knocking them out of contention as potential members of a PP. so 2x3 will never divide without remainder into any 2P x where Px>3. all primes in the set whose members are paired with Set C end up paired with composites. Although the frequency of primes thins out gradually as a consequence of the Prime Number Theorem.56 C are matched-up with members of either Set A or E to form odd-number pairs that sum to a given ENN. CC pairings result which consequently create AE/EA match-ups. or all composites of P x in a given set of natural numbers) because all such numbers are products of PyPx. is divisible without remainder by P x. 25 … while such multiples appear every fifth member of the odd natural numbers: as in the case of 5. No prime (Px) is divisible by another prime without remainder due to the definition of primes. This process is what limits the impacts of the composites of odd primes greater than 3 on the number of PPs for a given ENN. It also means that composites of 3. AA match-ups result while if it is a member of Set B or Set E. Any prime multiplied by 2 will yield a result unique from the multiplication of any other prime times 2. whatever it might be hypothetically). 13. multiples of 5 can be counted out in the set of all natural numbers at 10. However. The types of match-ups that occur for a given ENN are controlled by the set membership of ENN/2. First. 15. One-third of all odd composites of 5 are already composites of 3 because composites in this analysis are counted in the sets of the smallest prime for which they are a composite. as with 3+47=50. Multiples of 6P x cause those patterns to occur because 6 is the number of sets chosen created for the assignment of the natural numbers in counting order and because any N6P x. Validating the Conjecture? The investigation into the validity of Goldbach’s Conjecture next sets up conditions that contradict either some aspect of the Conjecture or some mathematical principle to demonstrate that the Conjecture cannot be invalid. all odd natural numbers. 11. Employing the same principle. 7. all odd natural numbers. A corollary to that is that every P xth member of all natural numbers. If that number belongs to Set C or Set F. will be paired against composites of 5 when Set C members are matched against Set E members. 31. all composites of Px. As a consequence of six being chosen as the number of sets for the assignment of all natural numbers. Euclid proved that the supply of primes is infinite. then eventually all primes would be matched up with composites for sufficiently large enough ENNs (those that are greater than two times the largest prime. the progression follows the same pattern. where N is any natural number.

What. the next composite in the series would be greater than the ENN for which the calculation is made. but the number of ONPs is established for a given ENN by the mechanical manner in which ONPs are generated. Starting with just the first ONP (which is 1+N where N=ENNx-1) for a given ENN. The ONPs for a given ENN could be reduced or increased in column two. then. starting with the smallest primes enables the investigator to employ consistent procedures. After considering and discarding the foregoing options for finding an ENN greater than 2 that does not have any PPs. Table XIII provides the illustration for the discussion of that effort. The matching of composites with primes in the summing pairs of each ENN. The smallest odd prime (3) was chosen to begin that process because one-third of all odd natural numbers are composites of 3 and they thereby have the greatest potential for impact upon the generation of PPs as they have the greatest density of the composites of any odd prime. Fractions are dropped from the results of the calculation because they represent a partial distance to the next composite in a prime’s family of composites. has been the controlling factor in the number of PPs that sum to any given ENN. the composites of 3 then eliminate R(2/3)-1 (where R is the initial number of ONPs when dealing with composites of 3 or the remainder of ONPs not eliminated by composites of the prime immediately smaller than the prime-composite family under consideration) all ONPs from contention as PPs (except when CC pairings occur. Setting aside 2 and its composites. larger primes and their composites only become relevant as the ENNs increase. as has been demonstrated above. The supply of ENNs is infinite because 2 can be consecutively added through infinity to any last ENN to generate more ENNs. It is also easier to begin with the smaller primes first because additional. Table XIII Results of Altering the Parameters 1 ENN 2 ONPs 3 Pairs With Comp Of 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 Remain -der 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 Pairs With Comp Of 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Rem 7 Pairs With Comp Of 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Rem 9 Pairs With Comp Of 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Rem 11 Pairs With Comp Of 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Rem 13 Pairs With Comp Of 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Rem 15 Adj For 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 Min Num PPs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 . next an even number pair then another odd number pair are added in sequence below the first pair (as in Table III) until the number of summing pairs equals ENN/2. +0 … because summing pairs are added in an odd-even sequence as the ENNs increase by 2 at each step in their progression. so the starting point cannot be changed in column one of Table XIII by substituting an odd natural number or some other number that is not an ENN. for which the composites of 3 eliminate only 1/3 of all ONPs). Composites of a given prime are paired up with primes for a given ENN following a very specific template. That means that the number of ONPs for a given sequence of ENNs will increase by the pattern +1. the only remaining possibility is to find an ENN for which all primes are paired either with composites or the number 1. but because that value is fractional. then Goldbach’s Conjecture would be validated. an ENN must exist in every case. changing that violates the problem. as explained through the exploration of the Conjecture’s mechanics above. First. could be done to alter the pattern of composites to insure that there were no PPs for some unknown ENN? If that alteration either violated mathematical principles or still could not eliminate PPs for one or more ENNs.57 This investigation next examines what could be done to alter the parameters that govern the generation of PPs for each ENN to discover what would have to be done to bring about the elimination of PPs.

58 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 … 300 … 600 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 … 75 … 150 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 … 50 … 100 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 … 25 … 50 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 … 15 … 30 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 … 10 … 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 … 4 … 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 … 6 … 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 … 1 … 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 … 5 … 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 … 1 … 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 … 4 … 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 … 0 … 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 … 4 … 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 … 1 … 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 … 3 … 5 .

the next larger prime’s composites are applied to the ONPs that still remain. X. 3/11…). thereby increasing the share of successive remainders of ONPs knocked out by the composites of those primes. always considering 1 to be paired with a prime also violates basic mathematical operations. as in 1/5). The functioning . beginning with the ENN 26. only their number. In addition. That procedure was followed in the construction of Table XIII. 49 is for the ENNs from 50 through 120). not the identity and the exact location of the primes that comprise those PPs. Note that the term ‘value’ is used. 600 150 100 50 40 10 5 5 1 4 1 3 0 3 1 2 The remaining ONPs that have not been eliminated by the composites of 3 then face similar hurdles from the composites of successive primes up through those of the prime the square of which is the largest prime square smaller than the ENN in question (as. for example. will always be considered paired with a prime. as an artificial construct. Location of the pairs possessing the composites of various primes is not in question. those latter three tables represented actual results while Table XIII is an artificial construct. but only the primes for which the squares are less than the ENN need be considered because primes which have squares larger than the ENN will not have any composites smaller than the given ENN that are not already a simultaneous composite with a prime that has a square smaller than the ENN. It is important to remember that such mathematical pairing in Table XIII is not an actual pairing. as a comparison of Tables I and XIII reveal. but it is similar to the way through which the Sieve of Eratosthenes mechanically eliminates whole numbers from the number line as potential primes. Even so. Once that value makes it through the process to become a PP. for which the composites of 5 in the parallel columns will be paired against each other and thereby eliminate only 1/5 of the ONPs that remain after the composites of 3 have eliminated their share of the ONPs from being PPs. That construct uses higher ratios and other devices to make it harder for PPs to emerge at the end of the process. primes simply do not follow any known pattern. First. Table XIII is only concerned with how many ONPs could be optimally eliminated as PPs through mathematical ratios. thereby increasing the impact of 1 upon the process. such as setting the numerators for the ratios used to calculate the number of pairs with composites of 5. the analyst created conditions that violate basic mathematical operations. PPs are still created under those more stringent conditions. 3/7. that value remains in the PP column due to basic mathematics. which sets up that process. Likewise. In Table XIII the ratio’s numerator remains at 3 for every prime’s composites even when an ENN is a composite of that prime (which in actual cases winds up having that prime’s composites paired against each other and limits the ratio’s numerator for that prime to 1. as any given ENN is finite and the number of primes is infinite. The ratio of the composites follows the same pattern as with the composites of 3: R(2/5)-1 for the composites of 5 except when an ENN is divisible by 5. That will continue for all the infinitude of primes for every ENN. By doing that. That way. 7. which would be necessary for 1 to pair only with primes. the ratio for composites of 3 in the set of ONPs will be raised to 2/3 for all ENNs. Those higher ratios and always considering 1 to be paired with a prime substantially reduce the number of PPs that result from the process.59 Alt. which would count 3 as a composite and would mathematically ignore the third of all cases in which composites of 3 are paired against each other. however. Both are sieving processes employing composites. which is neither a prime nor a composite. Making the hurdles higher and therefore harder to pass over for ONPs becomes the next step in determining if there is an ENN for which there are no PPs. which means that they will not all be two apart. not actual pairings. the unit 1. That explanation may seem complicated. the number of the PPs becomes the critical factor. After each prime’s composites remove ONPs from contention as PPs. Most of the larger primes will not have any composites that are smaller than a given ENN. Although Table XIII looks like Tables VIII. 11 and larger primes at 3 for all pairings. The numerator of the ratio for the composites of other primes will then be increased to 3 (3/5. and XII. Making those alterations raises the barriers that the ONPs must cross to become PPs in Table XIII. that added value (of 1 ONP) can wind up artificially paired with a composite of 3 or composite of any subsequent prime through the mathematical functioning of their ratio. What happens is that each time the number of ONPs is increased by 1 by increasing the ENN by 2.

the barriers would have to be set exceedingly high at this point in our mathematical knowledge because it has already been demonstrated that there are PPs for every ENN up through at least 4x10 14 [Prime Conjectures]. Where 3 is used in the numerator for the primes greater than 3. In fact. the variance created by composites of primes with squares less than the ENN pairing with smaller primes found in the first column of the summing pairs for that ENN is eliminated. If 6 then replaced 4 for the numerator of the ratios for primes greater than 5. the arrival of the value 1 and any higher values will be delayed in the PP column. or 842 can be visually inspected to confirm in reality that they have PPs.60 of those processes can be seen in simple division: dividing a number by 5 will generate a specific quotient (as with 95 divided by 5 yielding 19). Even when 4 replaces 3 in the ratio’s numerator for primes greater than 3. as explained above. The hurdles erected serve as sieves that individually strain out ONPs for each ENN. Depending upon how much higher the numerator values are set (as long as the ratios do not equal 1. though there were five in the construct that used 3 in the numerators of the ratios for the primes greater than 3. Therefore. By dropping the -1 from the ratios used to calculate how many ONPs are eliminated from consideration as PPs by the composites of a given prime [as with R(3/5) -1 for the composites of 5]. the use of that construct to set minimum values for PPs produces results that argue forcefully that Goldbach’s Conjecture is valid. If something happens when a 15th ONP first comes up in the process. for that alternate result. PP column (which would have to be moved to the right as the number of ENNs was increased and additional primes became consequential in the calculation) it means that from that point forward there must always be at least that minimum number of PPs for all subsequent ENNs. Even though the barriers in the artificial constructs are set well above those that exist in reality. Each ENN through 26. PPs are still mathematically generated. Raising the barriers even higher will slow the creation of PPs. but even though basic mathematical principles are violated to do so.00. If any of the ratios were set at 1. PPs still wind up being mathematically generated at the ENN 26. the first PP would arrive at 842. the number of PPs will gradually increase because the factors that originally produced the variance in the actual results have been eliminated and even though the higher barriers generate PPs (in this case beginning at 26) at a higher number and at a slower rate. making moot those match-ups that can slightly increase the ratios above expected values (as described above for the composites of 7 for the ENN 96 (where the composite 91 knocks out 5). there are no even natural numbers waiting somewhere down the dark. so use of that construct creates a minimum floor below which the number of PPs cannot fall. .00). but nowhere along the infinite number line can the division of ever-larger dividends by 5 produce smaller quotients. always using the higher ratio numerator even when a prime is a factor of a given ENN. Choosing 6 for the ratio numerator for all primes greater than 5 and 4 for 5’s numerator and 2 for 3’s. but that could not happen because altering the sieving process in that way would violate the same mathematical principles that would be compromised if Eratosthenes’s Sieve had a prime that could eliminate all subsequent primes in violation of the numerous proofs that verify that the supply of primes is infinite. The observed variance in the actual results is equal to or greater than the minimum number of PPs established for each ENN by the artificial construct. as seen for the alternate 600 at the bottom of Table XIII. no PPs would result. In that alternate paradigm. unexplored reaches of the number line waiting to invalidate Goldbach’s Conjecture as it was restructured by Euler. Since setting the barriers in the artificial construct so far above those that actually winnow out PPs from ONPs cannot bar PPs from making it through the process. the numerators for the ratios involving primes greater than 3 were raised to 4. at 122. Once the value of an ONP reaches that final. they are still created for ENNs equal to or greater than a certain ENN. which means that even with higher barriers to the production of PPs. Therefore. All of the primes with squares less than that ENN are counted as composites by the artificially increased ratios used to calculate how many ONPs are eliminated by a given prime’s composites. the alterations do not permit some unknown large number to be devoid of PPs. Increasing the dividend will eventually increase the quotient (100/5=20). PPs still show up early along the number line. making all primes composites when their squares are less than the ENN. All of the variance in the results has been eliminated by the more stringent conditions. both members of the pair artificially wind up being primes where one would occasionally be a smaller prime than the factor of the composite of the larger prime. PPs would still eventually be created and would exist for all larger ENNs once the first PP arrives. 122. which is determined by how high the ratio numerators are set. it will happen the same way each time the sieving process is employed. and always considering 1 to be paired with a prime place far higher barriers than those that actually exist. One just has to picture each ONP passing through the process one at a time. there were still two PPs at 600. even with these higher barriers.

The Prime Glossary. Apostolos.61 Historical References Doxiadis.html .html Verifying Goldbach’s Conjecture up to 4 x 1014. Goldbach’s conjecture. Norton & Company. New York. Uncle Petros & Goldbach’s Conjecture. Bloomsbury Publishing. 1988. http://primes. 2000.W. http://www. Paul.utm.php/GoldbachConjecture. Hoffman.edu/glossary/page.unigiessen. W. Archimedes’ Revenge.informatik.de/staff/richstein/ca/ Goldbach. New York.

the approach will be based upon the structure of the number system as it can be permissibly bent to the specifics of the problem. it will not be dealt with here. and Goldbach’s Conjecture. however. 2013 Certain problems in mathematics are considered unsolvable – perhaps due to the lack of an appropriate technique for solving them or perhaps because their parameters create impossible conditions. though there is one polymath effort that appears to be closing in on a solution based upon a University of New Hampshire math professor’s analysis of the problem. Introduction There are two twin number conjectures.E. mathematicians generally believe that “the evidence [for the correctness of that conjecture] is overwhelming. The Twin Prime Conjecture has appeared to be one of those inscrutable mathematical challenges that have lain just beyond the reach of known techniques. which will be very simple and very brief. In the vein of the author’s earlier papers on Ulam’s Spiral Square. As put by Hardy and Wright in their 1979 edition of An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers and quoted in Wolfram Mathworld. particularly by formulaic means. Sometimes that insolvability results from those seeking solutions having continually travelled down barren roads which have offered no chance for success. have seemed destined to fail. there has been a need for more productive techniques. A second twin prime conjecture involves a modification to Brun’s constant. but it will do so through a structural analysis that employs several simple.” 1 Apparently. demonstrate the conjecture’s validity. proof of conjectures like the Twin Prime “is at present beyond the resources of mathematics. then move onto the proof itself.C. Some attribute the conjecture to the Greek mathematician Euclid of Alexandria. Previous attempts to solve it.300 .62 The Twin Prime Conjecture: Proven at Last c. This paper will. It will first explore the relevant structures employed in the proof. arbitrary constructs which are acceptable tools to employ in the quest for the proof. A Very Brief History of the Twin Prime Conjecture Twin primes and their nature have been considered at least as far back as Euclid in the 3 rd Century B. or Hardy and Littlewood’s first conjecture. While this has hitherto not been proven.” 2 The discovery of ever-larger twins are continuously announced and considerable work has been done to demonstrate that there is a limiting bounds by which primes can differ. Hardy and Littlewood’s Conjecture F. This is the conjecture that will be proven in this paper. with a version of it known as the strong twin prime conjecture. 3 That means that the problem is something over 2. the better known of which contends that there are an infinite number of primes that differ by two. which would make it one of the oldest open problems in mathematics.

making it perhaps the oldest remaining unresolved problem in the field of number theory. His research took advantage of work published in 2005 by Daniel Goldston. but the use of a number line helps visualize their relationships.p = 2k where k is a natural number > 1.5 G. a previously obscure. by asserting that an infinite number of primes (p and p’) exist such that p’ . but perfectly allowable. Figure I An Example of Arbitrary Parallel Number Lines Offset by Two 1 3 23 25 3 5 25 27 5 7 27 29 7 9 29 31 9 11 31 33 11 13 33 35 13 15 35 37 15 17 37 39 17 19 39 41 19 21 41 43 21 23 43 45 _______________________________________________________________ Primes in locations where they form a twin prime denoted as 7 Primes in locations where they do not form a twin prime denoted as 7 . one could also create paired number lines. They could be placed alongside each other and be offset by two in a similar arbitrary. reaching an announced value of 4. Figure I below has parallel number columns that represent parallel number lines (actually line segments) as described. One could then choose to highlight only the odd whole numbers on the two parallel lines (in this case doing so only because no even whole numbers constitute twin primes.63 years old. 2013 paper that has taken a tremendous step forward in resolving the Twin Prime Conjecture. 2013. The creation of a number line is an arbitrary intellectual exercise. Tarrence Tao proposed a Polymath project (Polymath8) to limit the bound further. and Cem Yildirim. designating the different numbers as locations along that line. 7 Following up on Zhang’s paper. Numbers do not actually exist on a master line someplace. Hardy and John Littlewood proposed a stronger version of the Twin Prime Conjecture.9 If one number line can be so created. but popular University of New Hampshire mathematics instructor (reportedly in his 50s) broke Hardy’s truism that “I do not know of an instance of a major mathematical advance initiated by a man past fifty. manner. proposing a distribution law for the twins similar to that of the Prime Number Theorem. Due to the researcher’s age.4 The Twin Prime Conjecture then becomes the case where k = 1. which finds an asymptotic distribution of primes. “which had shown there would always be pairs of primes closer than the average distance between two primes.680 on July 27.H. Alphonse dePolignac expanded the problem into an infinite set of problems. as twin primes can only differ by two and two is the only even prime). Janos Pintz. with both distinct – or exactly definable – and imprecise points along its course. though the columns in this visual example are broken apart for conservation of presentation space and all even numbers have been arbitrarily removed as unessential.” 6 Zhang established a bound of 70 million for some integer N that serves as the gap between infinitely many prime pairs. the AARP recently posted – as did many other sources – the story of Titang Zhang’s May 22. known collectively and justifiably as dePolignac’s Conjecture. Zhang.8 Parallel Number Lines The progression of numbers along their dimming pathway toward infinity is often conceived as a number line.

each set of paired numbers on the two lines may be conceived as one entity (such as 3. then 5. The pantheon of twin primes does have a general structure and some of it will be revealed through the use of certain constructs.17). but in other instances.64 In Figure I. two numbers would remain. They do thin out considerably faster than primes. into two-thirds of the remaining numbers that follow 3 along the downsized. with its limited number of entries. If one were to work their way through the double-line. 3 would divide cleanly. already shows the density of twin primes getting thinner. Their design – such as the use of the two parallel number lines introduced above – will avoid violating any mathematical principles. In this respect the parallel number lines would be treated as if they were a single line. Employing Arbitrary Constructs Thus. which would be twin primes. The analytical constructs employed to winnow out the infinitude of twin primes will be arbitrarily selected for the task. no harm would be done because no even numbers are part of any twins. not proven. . paired line. while the supply of twin primes seems inexhaustible. The effort at hand to demonstrate that the number of twin primes is infinite will begin with the paired number lines illustrated in Figure I. it will proceed through how composites block paired integers on that line from being twin primes. as initiated in Figure I’s line segments. nonprimes – known as composites – could be winnowed out of that double-line by dividing each number by the primes that are equal to or smaller than its square root. When working with the infinite parallel number lines. twin (or paired) primes are marked in red and solitary primes – those without a prime immediately opposite on the parallel number line – are marked with yellow. Harking back to the Sieve of Eratosthenes. From this point forward it becomes useful to understand the structure of the blocs and sets that comprise Table I. and onward by each prime in succession. They are being employed to help promote an understanding of the structure of twin primes. then 3. first dividing by 2. the infinitude of their total number is still only surmised. if 2 and all of its composites (known collectively as the even numbers) were removed.10 That will be treated as a simple given. but with doubled entries of numbers along that line. The next involves the division of those two number lines into (1) blocs defined by the squares of the consecutive odd integers and (2) sets comprised of four consecutive paired integers from those two number lines. It is interesting to note that Figure I. The first of those constructs was the paired number lines (in Figure I). Nothing prohibits this from being done. or without remainder. and will conclude with the proof that shows why composites can never fully block the creation of new twin primes along the course of the paired number lines.5 and 15. all of the composites would be identified and removed. ultimately leaving only primes. Once the even numbers have been removed from the doubled number line. So. In some cases there would be only one number (a solitary prime) remaining from a set of paired numbers.

and Twin Primes The number of odd integers in each bloc can be readily calculated using the formula: Bn = (n + 2)2 – (n)2 2 where Bn is the number of odd integers in the bloc that begins with n2. For Table I’s Bloc 3.(5)2 . Set 3 Set 3 Set 3 95 97 97 99 99 101 101* 103* Set 4 71* 73 75 77 Set 4 103 105 105 107 107* 109* 109 111 Set 5 111 113 113 115 115 117 117 119 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Perfect squares denoted by 49 Twin Primes denoted by * Blocs.65 Table I Dividing the Paired Number Lines into Blocs and Sets Bloc 1 Set 1 1 1 3 3* 5* 5* 7* 7 9 9 11 11* 13* 13 15 15 17* 19 21 17 19* 21 23 Bloc 3 Set 1 23 25 27 29* 31 33 35 37 39 41* 43 45 25 27 29 31* 33 35 37 39 41 43* 45 47 Bloc 4 Set 1 47 49 51 53 55 57 59* 61 63 65 67 69 49 51 53 55 57 59 61* 63 65 67 69 71 73* 75 77 79 Bloc 5 Set 1 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 Bloc 2 Set 1 Set 2 Set 2 Set 2 Set 2 . Bn = (7)2 . Sets.

(n2 + 4n + 4) . the paired number lines may be conceived as one number line with paired numbers. some of which will be twin primes (as displayed in Figure I).66 2 Bn = 12 That simple formula leads to a more general expression that calculates the number of paired odd integers. that are consecutively added to the blocs in their order of progression: Ba = (n + 4)2 – (n + 2)2 . There are two twin primes in each of the first five blocs. composites of each prime are removed in order from consideration as twin primes. There are several ways that pairs could be removed from consideration. each prime is divided into all remaining numbers beginning with the prime’s square to . Table I also denotes the locations of the first ten twin primes. Table II Twin Primes in the First Ten Blocs Bloc Number of Twin Primes 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 3 8 4 9 2 10 2 __________________________________________ Eliminating Paired Numbers as Twin Primes As part of the effort to prove that the supply of twin primes is infinite. Ba. Table II illustrates. nothing is very complicated. As stated above. Beginning with 3. with its removal of the even numbers.(n + 2)2 . is only a variation of the difference between consecutive squares. but the way that is here being specified must be followed due to the mechanics of the proof. but the increase in paired numbers from one bloc to the next is a crucial element in the proof of the infinitude of prime numbers. an algorithm has been established for the way in which paired numbers along the combined number lines will be removed from consideration as twin primes because at least one member of a given pair is a composite. going to three twin primes in Bloc 7 and four in Bloc 8 before falling back to two again in the ninth and tenth blocs. as shown in the table.(n)2 2 2 Ba = (n2 + 8n +16) – (n2 + 4n +4) . but unfortunately that pattern does not hold for very long. One bloc to the next consecutive bloc will always exhibit an increase of four pairs of numbers.(4n + 4) 2 2 Ba = 4 This.11 So far.(n2) 2 2 Ba = (4n + 12) . In addition to dividing the paired number lines into blocs and sets. but working with twin primes sets up a slightly different process. Proceeding in a manner similar to that of Eratosthenes’ Sieve.

it could still be part of a twin. to be so it would have to be paired with a prime at its other position along the modified number line.33 x x 33. Whether the other member of the pair is a prime or a composite is irrelevant. if one of the pair is a prime.29 29.13 13.15 x x 15.3 3. The smallest prime that divides into either member of the pair gets all of the credit for the pair’s removal from consideration.67 determine which numbers along the line are its composites (and therefore not members of twins). unlike Eratosthenes’ Sieve.17 17. does not remove 15’s pairs from consideration because 15 is first considered a composite of 3 and. Twin Primes are marked in blue.21 x x 21. combined number line.23 23. 5. and the process follows in the same manner for each prime in succession (each removing the fraction 2/p x from the new total ). that larger magnitude primes may divide into either member of the pair is also irrelevant. was already removed from consideration.41 ____________________________________________________ Pairs with one or more composites are marked in red.7 7.27 x x 27. The process of removal from consideration stops once one member of the pair has been identified as a composite by the sieving.25 x 25.11 11.31 31. In each case.19 19.37 37. However. a prime can only remove pairs beginning with the pair that is the first to contain that prime’s square. for example. Figure II illustrates how this is to be done: Figure II Removing Composites from the Paired Number Line by 5 by 3 Pairs by 3 by 5 1 1. Both numbers at a given point are removed from consideration as twin primes if either or both of the pair is a composite. not one-third. .5 5.39 x x 39.9 x x 9. as such. Five then removes twofifths of the remaining pairs from consideration. However. Removal from consideration is accomplished by the smallest magnitude prime that divides cleanly into either member of the pair. composites of 3 remove two-thirds of all pairs down the infinitude of this special.35 x 35.

Moving on. the supply of twin primes will not be exhausted. which means that it does not remove 3/5s of those remaining numbers. Following the action of 3’s odd composites. A given bloc could be reduced to 0. at each point along its infinite length. The prime 3 removes 2/3s of all the pairs beginning with Bloc 2 and progresses on through infinity continuing to do so. That may seem complicated. Table III’s Column G lists the actual number of twin primes within each bloc. all of that does not provide enough tools up to this point to construct the conjecture’s proof. By simple deduction. but that will not demonstrate that all successive blocs will also be 0. the prime 5 comes into play beginning with Bloc 3. A rigid. ever-larger twins are being discovered. one cannot determine exactly where either primes or twin primes will fall along the paired number lines without resorting to brute arithmetic methods even though the density of primes and twins. Composites of 3 and 5 remove pairs in a pattern that is infinitely repeated based upon the algorithm: RN = 1 . Column E presents what will become an important value in the process of proving the Twin Prime Conjecture. there are more twin primes and the supply is not . all primes and their composites are considered. but it is not. Table III offers a snapshot of an interesting relationship. The values in Column F do not even seem to follow an orderly progression. a prime’s composites can only begin to remove paired numbers from consideration as twin primes beginning with the square of that prime (though a composite of a smaller prime may do so at that point as 51 does with 49. largest prime serving as a defining number through some arbitrary bloc along the combined number line. Column D provides the fractional value of each pair within each bloc (which is the inverse of the total number of pairs in the bloc). For purposes of the proof. no end to them has been found. That means that 1/3 of all paired numbers along the combined number line are not removed from consideration as twin primes by the action of odd composites of 3. followed by the fractional value of pairs in each bloc that are twin primes [H]. • Yet. differing by 2. prioritized process has been adopted for removing paired numbers along that line from consideration as twin primes. That blocs progressively and consistently increase by four pairs over the number contained in their immediate predecessors because successive blocs begin with the squares of successive odd whole numbers. As long as Column E is not permanently reduced to zero from some bloc onward. likewise a fractional value in Column F for any bloc will not guarantee that successive blocs will also display non-zero values.68 Summarizing Progress with the Problem At this point. onward. when graphed. or bloc. but only in consecutive order and at the appropriate point. the square of which starts off the righthand column of the combined number line. The table then lists [in C] how many pairs are in each bloc. Remembering that the composites of the smaller prime(s) take effect before considering the composites of the new large prime (in this case 5). Column F then converts Column E’s fractions to rounded decimal values. four critical components of the solution have been covered: • • • Two odd-only number lines have essentially been combined into one line with two numbers.2)…(px . Figure III illustrates how that works. and.(p1 .2) p1 px RN is the fraction of the pairs not removed from consideration as twins by the actions of the primes from p1 (3) through (px). 51 because 51 is a composite of 3 while 49 = 72). as long as Column F is not permanently reduced to 0 from some point. That is because there is an illusion of disorder to primes. It is the fraction of pairs along the combined number line that are not removable as possible twin primes by composites of primes equal to or less than the defining number from Column B for a given bloc. From knowledge of the studies of twin primes. the composites of 5 remove 2/5s of the remaining paired numbers along the number line beginning with Bloc 3. appear to follow generally predictable functions. The table’s first column sets up the initial ten blocs and lists – for each bloc – the initiating odd root. As consequence.

69 exhausted. no boundary is evident below which the values in Column E cannot fall. Ever-larger twin prime pairs are being discovered.2000 . No clear pattern has emerged.1429 .0871 . nothing in Table III suggests that the progression of fractions in Column E cannot be permanently reduced to zero at some point. But. the data so far does not give any indication in the other direction either.1169 . so no end has yet been found to their supply for Column G (and therefore also H) and the value in Column E has therefore not been permanently reduced to zero.0989 .0989 . However. Table III The Elimination of Paired Numbers along the Combined Number Line as Twin Primes A B C Bloc Defining Pairs in Number Bloc (e) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 D 1/e E Fraction (f) of Pairs Remaining … 1/3 1/5 1/7 1/7 9/77 9/91 9/91 135/1547 135/1729 F 1.1429 . there is a way to create a base pattern that demonstrates that the data in an infinite continuation of Column E will never be permanently reduced to zero after some arbitrarily large n is reached in Column B.000(f) G Number of Twin Primes in Bloc 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 H Fraction of Pairs in Bloc that are Twins 1/2 1/4 1/6 1/8 1/10 1/12 3/28 1/8 1/18 1/20 1/4 1/8 1/12 1/16 1/20 1/24 1/28 1/32 1/36 1/40 … .0873 . so a zero value is possible for some as-yet unknown large value for Column B.3333 .

51 19 x 51. 53 20 x 53. 39 13 x 39. 27 7 x x 27. but probably and absolutely are radically different concepts. that the pattern to the data in Table III probably continues infinitely. Proof or rejection of the conjecture’s validity will require finding a relationship where it can be demonstrated that some mathematical linkage requires either the elimination of opportunities for twin primes to exist after some point along the number line or a clear demonstration that a boundary absolutely equal to or more mathematically stringent than the existing pantheon of primes is incapable of eliminating the opportunities for the existence of twins. 37 12 x 37. The Proof: Twin Primes Are Infinite in Number One could guess. 31 9 31. 47 17 x x 47.70 Figure III An Example of the Pattern of Composites Paired Number Position Composite of 3 Composite of 5 13. 23 5 x 23. 25 6 x 25. While the primes themselves cannot offer up a convincing . 21 4 x 21. 49 18 49. 43 15 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------43. 29 8 x 29. 35 11 x x 35. Green indicates pairs with composites of both 3 and 5. 33 10 x 33. 19 3 19. 17 2 x x 17. 15 1 x x 15. 45 16 x x 45. 41 14 x 41. 55 21 x ___________________________________________________________________________ Red denotes twin primes. based upon the discovery of ever-larger twin primes.

and will be treated as.180 7 13 28 1/28 . a prime for the purpose of eliminating number pairs along the infinite number line as twin primes. that will facilitate the easiest division of the data in Column G by that in Column E.0278 1/17 .0558 2. Table III’s Column E.0025 1/197 . are not carried over to Table IV. and Column F.040 … … … … … … … … 999 1997 3996 1/3996 . A new Column F for Table IV records the fraction of the paired numbers beginning with each bloc that are not removed from consideration as twin primes by the mathematical action of the primes and falseprimes acting against the number line’s paired numbers.1250).0313 1/15 .222 6 11 24 1/24 .1429 2. Column E’s data is the decimal value that a given pair of numbers along the combined number line possesses as a share of the total number pairs within its specific bloc (as one pair in Bloc 2 accounts for 1/8 of the eight pairs in the bloc.0769 2.131 9 17 36 1/36 .0250 1/19 .104 … … … … … … … … 99 197 396 1/396 . Doing so will require the use of an acknowledged false assumption that would mathematically create a situation which would more aggressively eliminate opportunities for twin primes to occur than do the existing composites.0909 2. then multiplying that remainder by the fraction (3/5) of pairs not removed as possible twin primes by the action of 5 and . The fraction recorded in Column F is calculated by multiplying the fraction of the pairs not removed by the action of composites of 3 (1/3).0526 2.0417 1/11 .1111 2. Table IV sets up that proof’s mechanics.0667 2.0500 1/9 . with its actual number of twin primes per bloc. directly from Table III (for purpose of quick comparisons).2000 2.0005007 2. which can be decimally recorded as .115 10 19 40 1/40 . an algorithm can be constructed employing a bit of Table III as its starting point.00032502 1/1997 .2500 … … … 2 3 8 1/8 .401 4 7 16 1/16 . The patently false assumption upon which Table IV is mathematically constructed is that every odd number in Column B is. with its fraction of pairs in a given bloc that are twin primes.3333 2.154 8 15 32 1/32 .0051 2.0625 1/7 .666 3 5 12 1/12 .0833 1/5 .0012 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Columns A through D in Table IV are taken.0000(f) of Pairs Remaining H Column G Divided by Column E 1 1 4 1/4 .286 5 9 20 1/20 .0000(1/e) F G Fraction (f) 1.1250 1/3 . Table IV Inability to Eliminate Twins through a More Aggressive Elimination of Paired Numbers A B C Bloc Defining Number Pairs in Bloc (e) D 1/e E 1. with the exception of the data for Blocs 99 and 999. but would nonetheless be demonstrably unable to block the infinite supply of twins in a manner that would prove that ever-larger twin primes cannot be blocked by the progression of composites down the number line.0357 1/13 .71 argument in either direction. Table IV’s Column E meanwhile converts the fractional value of 1/e to a decimal.

That means that Column F’s fractional values and Column G’s accompanying decimal values are lower than those that can be obtained down each column using only true primes and their composites. ensuring that a minimum boundary for twin primes will exist through an infinite and predictable progression. twin primes cannot be extinguished by the more stringent constraints on twins found in Table IV. and 9 combined: R = (1/3) R = (1/3)(3/5) = 3/15 = 1/5 R = (1/3)(3/5)(5/7) = 15/105 = 1/7 R = (1/3)(3/5)(5/7)(7/9) = 105/945 = 1/9 New twin primes are added in each bloc of Table IV because the primes and false-primes upon which the composite calculations are based cannot generate enough composites at any given point to eliminate all pairs as twins. 5. Column H in Table IV is the result of dividing Column G by Column E to show how many twin primes ought to be found in each bloc. it has already been shown that for combination of primes and false-primes composed for Table IV. 13 It is apparent from the limited entries in the table that the values in H are decreasing towards 2. Meanwhile. which is clear are infinite in number just as they would have to be under the more stringent constraints envisioned for Table IV. as illustrated for 3 through 9: For just 3: For 3 and 5 combined: For 3. 7. 5. a greater fraction of pairs are removed from the number line and a smaller fractional value remains than is found in Table III’s Column E. The number of odd pairs in a bloc.12 Those calculations are done for both primes and false-primes by the author to establish a more restrictive bound than would be possible with just true primes and their composites. with that decimal constantly decreasing as n increases. Table IV thereby provides minimum bounds on the number of twin primes. the same relationship results and the value found for any given bloc in H will always be greater than 2. and 7 combined: For 3. the fraction of pairs remaining will be the inverse of the defining number. While decimal values are employed from Columns E and G to calculate H. Use of the false-primes thus produces values in Table IV that are both predictable and that will always be greater than 2. The question is resolved: twin primes have to be infinite in number in reality because twins would still be infinite in number under a prime plus false prime arrangement that would remove more pairs from the combined number line than could just real primes and their composites alone. the fraction displayed for each bloc in Column F is calculated by multiplying the fraction of paired numbers for each prime or false-prime that cannot be removed from consideration as twin primes. . The calculations are quite simple. In addition.72 onward through the odd numbers effective within each specific bloc. The values in H will never actually fall to exactly 2 or lower (such as to the 0 needed to block the creation of new twins) due to the relationship between the fractions in D and F.000 as one descends the column. Because false-primes are included. the real prime plus false-prime combination has the advantage of predictability through infinity that is not evident with just the real primes. thereby insuring that even with the extra mathematical impact against the existence of twin primes. is calculated by the formula: Bn = (n + 2)2 – (n)2 2 The number of pairs in a given bloc will therefore always be twice the defining number for that bloc plus two. Division of the number of pairs in a bloc by the defining number will be equivalent to: X = 2n + 2 n Such a relationship will always produce a result that is a decimal value greater than 2. Thus. as shown earlier.

. AARP Blog.aarp.php?titla=Bounded-gaps- 8 ”Bounded gaps between primes. the proof’s mechanics match up well with the decreasing density of twin primes. Two number lines can be moved relative to each other to create any difference between them and their then-paired numbers. Now that it is proven that there is an infinite number of twin primes. The true number of primes will vary from that.14 Notes 1 ”Twin Prime Conjecture. What is clear is that that the composites of real primes alone can never wipe out the opportunities for twin primes along the dual number line. about other 2k differences between primes where k is equal to any whole number? The arrangement for twins was accomplished by combining two parallel number lines whose variance was “arbitrarily” selected to be two because any even-number difference could have been set. then. 2 3 McKee. Kenneth. but it is. “Solving a Riddle of Primes. Maggie. is based upon the infinitude of odd numbers. which does not conflict with the need for an infinite number of twin primes as set by the conjecture. two was selected because that met the conjecture’s parameters. 2013.” http://mathworld.org/wiki/Twin_prime Ibid. and that matches up quite well with the need for a decreasing density for twins.html Ibid.12989 4 ”Twin Prime. A minimum boundary that is absolutely predictable in its mathematical behavior has been found that demonstrates that twin primes cannot fall below a certain density per bloc ensures the infinitude of twin primes because the number of blocs is infinite as their infinitude.nature.” between-primes 9 There is an aspect of quantum theory that proposes all of existence is a vast hologram.” http://en.” Nature. 14 May 2013.org/2013/05/24/50-something- 5 6 Kiger. with one member of each of those pairs being a composite of three. mathematician-solves-twin-prime-conjecture-problem/ 7 Chang. Kenneth. 10 Because the number lines are offset by two.wolfram. May 20. http://www.org/polymath1/index. 2013. but number lines do not exist in nature – they are human intellectual constructs. the size of blocs steadily and predictably increases due to the increasing distance between the squares of the consecutive odd numbers that define each bloc. http://blog. The prime/false-prime algorithm upon which the proof is constructed reveals a minimum of 2+ twins per bloc. but the number of twins will consistently exceed the minimum set by the boundary. creating new Tables III and IV to prove such relationships create infinite numbers for any 2k arrangements. The author will follow this paper with examples of such other differences.com/TwinPrimeConjecture.” New York Times.73 Afterword It seems that the proof cannot be that simple. leading to 2/3s of all number pairs being removed from consideration as twin primes.wikipedia. composites of three are not found opposite of each other. Simultaneously. http://michaelnielsen. ”First proof that infinitely many prime numbers come in pairs.com/news/first-proof-that-infinitely-many-prime-numbers-come-in-pairs-1. in turn. May 24. what.

the actions of the composites of the real primes – say 3 and 5 – follow a cyclical pattern. for 2k pairs to be infinite in number for any given whole-number value of k. They do not actually remove any twin primes. What will need to be determined is whether or not a similar relationship exists between D and F. as they would remain the same. pattern. producing a similar H. some blocs may have more primes than that. That happens with the twins that are permitted by the actions of the real primes and their composites. and calculations. 12 Of course. 13 It is important to remember that both primes and twin primes do not appear to follow orderly progressions. If even numbers were included in this instance. as explained in the text. accumulating some of those decimal values to result with more than two twins in a given bloc. 14 The introductory explanations will not be needed again. or modular. . can be done because they are in all cases irrelevant. the addition of larger primes to the mix mask those effects by knocking out pairs not removed by the actions of 3’s and 5’s composites. However. Ba would equal 8. but the calculations make it appear that the number of twins has been reduced. With calculations projecting 2+ twin primes per bloc. so that on the average there are more than two twin pairs per bloc due to the composites of 3 and 5.74 11 The removal of even numbers from consideration. but the composites for 3 and 5 follow a cyclical. but they wind up being counted twice to arithmetically cut down on the number of possible twin primes. the composites of the false-primes are really composites of smaller primes.

75 Part II: Science .

76 Applied Mathematics and Physics Xeno of Elea created series of now-famous paradoxes that sought to defend the philosophical viewpoint that the then-known universe as a single entity in which motion and divisibility were illusions. known as the Elean School. . has since been generally rejected. That philosophical contention. The following paper disputes several of Xeno’s paradoxes and it presents a new argument against his Fletcher’s Paradox (or Paradox of the Arrow) based upon a calculable truth that even nondimensional instants of time carry an imprint or signature where motion exists. though quantum mechanics holds out tantalizing hints that there may be some truth to that viewpoint at the smallest levels of existence within the universe.

by means of mathematical exposition. even though the instant of time is a theoretical construct. indivisible entity. imperceptible trace on that moment. no motion could take place within any of those dimensionless moments. consist of an infinite string of dimensionless moments. but it does leave an almost. the instant or moment of time has been employed as an intellectual tool to enable calculations to be made without the results being blurred by motion across time and space. dividing time into dimensionless units is like dividing space through infinite subdivision. As the arrow must move through a series of dimensionless moments of time. because they are artificial constructs which possess no internal passage of time. there would then theoretically be no motion at that ultimate. Such an outcome is what Xeno cleverly argued would result if the universe were not a singular. Xeno confused the issue for his readers because no infinite number of subdivisions would ever yield a distance equal to a dimensionless point and because. Aristotle sums up the paradox. With no motion taking place in any of them. Xeno appeared to be arguing that is the outcome that would result from any attempt at motion. . just as calculations are made ignoring forces like gravity and friction to calculate ideal cases involving another property. As stated. Such division is an intellectual. making motion impossible if time is composed of (merely) a series of moments. any given dimensionless instant. Dimensionless instants of time do not comprise time any more than dimensionless points comprise distance or a line. explaining that “If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest. Nothing is ever actually infinitely subdivided in the physical world. Points (in space or time) are theoretical constructs that enable mathematicians and physicists to make calculations regarding processes in the physical world. the arrow could not be in motion. dimensionless subdivision (though. making any motion thereby impossible). motion is movement between two definable. but it has no real existence because it has no dimension. in Xeno’s usage in his paradox. and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment. mathematical process. motion must. that would make all distances equivalent to nothing as infinite subdivision should then ultimately yield nothing but strings of dimensionless points along any course of travel. Xeno perceived that at any given dimensionless instant of time.79 could ever be fully crossed. illustrates how an observer ‘sees’ an object’s motion that accompanies. be an illusion. technically speaking.” 5 Time must. In The Dichotomy Xeno poses the impossible task of ever being able to start because the process of infinite subdivision requires the individual to first cross an initial subdivision of zero before being able to cross any other subdivisions of the total distance. Yet. motion can. But as seen in the alternative above. That ability to perceive motion as part of an instant overturns Xeno’s paradox through a second argument that. but not totally. but it is divorced from movement in the physical world. The Fletcher’s Paradox The question of whether or not motion exists was dealt with by Xeno through The Fletcher’s Paradox. or is attached to. essentially adjoining points – the start and the finish. If infinite subdivision could somehow decrease the distance between two points to the extent that they become one dimensionless point. be perceived at that construct. The initial. passing from one definable point to another. Such motion is not seen in the normal sense as progressing along the path of travel. given any normal average speed. the flying arrow is therefore motionless. Xeno attempted to defend the belief that all motion was illusory because any distance was a collection of dimensionless points that could not be crossed and because infinite subdivision produced an infinite succession of divisions of a distance that would consume infinite time in their crossing. not within them. motion progresses with a speed that is determined by dividing the distance by the time expended. infinitesimal subdivisions would require only infinitesimal amounts of time to cross. An infinitesimally small distance would require an infinitesimally small time to cross. To summarize: motion occurs between dimensionless points. as a consequence. which he reasoned must be impossible. The location of a point in either space or time can be defined. but assuming both that an infinite number of steps is required for any distance and that any trip would be barred from being initiated because any first or subsequent step would be limited to covering a zero distance. in a fashion. fairly obvious solution parallels that for The Dichotomy. given a finite speed of motion. no subdivision would yield just a point because half of something cannot be nothing. Those dimensionless points provide references. Infinite subdivision is not a process undertaken by the traveler but rather only by the mathematician or philosopher in a thought-experiment. as pointed out above.

must appear shorter. even motion with the swiftness of light. or compressed. At the specified moment chosen for the thought-experiment. though those factors would have to be worked into any calculations involved in a laboratory performance of the experiment. Modern scientists have a fairly good understanding of its speed and have defined it to be exactly 299. they did not even realize that light had a speed of propagation. OM. Measuring Motion at an Instant Xeno’s arrow is taken as the departure point for a thought-experiment that demonstrates that. With no duration to an instant. motion can be observed at a dimensionless instant of time. is the longer of the triangle’s two legs (OM and MP 1). The ancient Greeks. The Fletcher’s Paradox sets up a problem concerning the divisibility of time that parallels that of the divisibility of space. thereby overturning Xeno’s contention that since motion cannot be seen. Xeno maintains that for motion to take place. could not measure the speed of light. Anything in motion carries an observable characteristic that sets it apart from an identical object or entity that is not in motion. Xeno contends that no motion occurs within any dimensionless moment.458 km/sec. Nonetheless. it must therefore not exist. For the experiment. which is a point at an as-yet unspecified position ever-so-slightly behind P 1’s actual position but is situated so that the light. P2 would be a point behind P1 along the arrow’s path of travel that creates the line P 2P1.25 cm (rounded) as calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem.792. That means that the front half of an arrow in motion. there has theoretically been no way to measure motion. The image from P 1 arrives later. and the point’s image from its earlier arrival at P 2. Figure I illustrates that thought-experiment. The effects of gravity and any air or wind resistance will be ignored for simplicity of calculation. contrary to Xeno’s understanding. an object – specifically an arrow in this paradox – must move from the place it occupies at one moment to some other place at some other moment. Regardless of which moment is selected for examination. It will travel at a constant velocity of 100 km/hr. motion is measurable at (though not across or within) a specific instant of time. But apparently until now no one has had a means for detecting motion at a dimensionless moment of time. situated at the end of the arrow at the point in time when O and M form the described right triangle’s longer leg (OM). the arrow’s point has not yet reached the position on the diagram defined as P 1. the arrow will be arbitrarily defined as one meter in length and its midpoint will be marked exactly by a dimensionless point. so therefore the arrow cannot be in motion. M is the closest point along the arrow’s path of flight to the experiment’s observer at point O. from the observer’s viewpoint. R would be a point at the arrow’s rear. but it is real. A recognizable difference thereby exists between an object in motion and one at rest relative to an observer. as talented as they were. physically at R 1 when the midpoint is at M.80 verifying that motion is in progress. even if the technology for doing so must advance for the observation to be actually made at the low speeds common in the everyday physical world. and that experiment will then be extrapolated to note where a little touch of quantum weirdness can be found in the macro world. at 10 m. arrives at the same time that the midpoint’s image does at O. A thought-experiment illustrates how that observation can be accomplished. because motion requires time for an expenditure of energy to generate or sustain it. Therefore. OP1 meanwhile serves as that right triangle’s hypotenuse. which represents the visible length compression of the front half of the arrow due to the arrow’s straight-line motion from the observer’s left to his right at 100 km/hr. no motion ought to be detected according to Xeno. has to start from an earlier . along a straight flight path. In the case of the arrow. The key point here is that OP 1 is slightly longer than OM. but is rather seen at point P2. because it had to travel a path that is 1. That means that the light-carried image of the arrow’s midpoint at M that reaches the observer at O arrives before the light and the corresponding image of the arrow’s point at P 1 that started simultaneously from its position as the midpoint image started from M. That midpoint will be located at point M for purposes of the experiment. The arrow’s point (located at P 1) thereby forms the right triangle OMP 1. specifically by 1. Applying similar logic. it can be shown that the end of the arrow. however. The difference is exceptionally miniscule. to an observer than an identical 1 m long arrow at rest at exactly the same distance from the observer. In it an observer (at O) is located 10 m from the midpoint at the instant that a line drawn from O to M would be perpendicular to the arrow’s path of travel.25 cm longer. The experiment will also show how the Fletcher’s Paradox is resolved by demonstrating that an arrow’s motion can be observed at a frozen moment of time. under the conditions specified.

If the arrow is stationary. which means that when the sound wave arrives at the timers’ positions at the finish line. consider two different types of energy travelling from the same point to the same observer. One may think of such situations as gateways into slightly different pasts. but it really is not. The stationary arrow would also have different arrival times for a given instant’s image from P 1 than it would for the image coming to the observer from M. If that seems at all confusing. the complete image would keep reinforcing itself even though the starting times from different places along the arrow’s length would have begun at earlier times than the shortest possible pathway from M to the observer at O. The visible flash and smoke from a track meet starter’s gun fired at a track’s 200 m mark are seen by timers at the finish line before they can hear the sound of the gun firing. but at different speeds.81 point in time than the image’s departure time from M (when the rear of the arrow was at R 2) to arrive at O at the same time as the midpoint’s image at M. but no image compression would take place because the image seen at a given point in time from P 1 would have started earlier than the image from M. That may seem a bit odd. the back half of the arrow will therefore appear lengthened or expanded in comparison with a stationary arrow. they are already seeing images that began their path to the timers later than the sound waves started. A timer is therefore hearing something that happened further in the past than the light that arrives at the same moment. The sound wave arrives later than the light carrying the image. The arrow in motion under the thought-experiment’s conditions sees a midpoint and a front point whose light-carried images Figure I Simplified Diagram of Apparent Visual Compression R M P2 >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> |_| / / | / / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |/ |/ _____ | _____ observer’s visual plane P1 .

than the arrow that is not in motion. It is the apparent foreshortening or compression of the front half of the arrow. The image from P1 that began at the same time as the light-carried image from M will not arrive until a later instant because it has 1.249 cm – 1. with sensitive enough equipment.000 cm) 3.P2 (or OP1 (hypotenuse) – OM (leg) What this says is that the arrow’s travel time from P 2 to P1 will be controlled by the difference between the length of the hypotenuse and the length of the specified leg and the amount of time required for light to travel their different distances.157 x 10-7 cm = v (OP1 – OM) c This figure of 1. which is greatly exaggerated in Figure I. to the velocity of the arrow times the difference in the length of OMP 1’s hypotenuse minus the OM leg.0 x 1010 cm/sec = (2. so the paradox dissolves into the nothingness of a failed idea. more distant objects are further in the past than closer ones. but calculable. beginning with: arrow velocity apparent compression) speed of light varies as P1 . one could measure that compression. with advanced-enough equipment observe the effect of motion at a dimensionless moment. Light carrying images to an observer serves.249 cm) 3. That compression is the motion that one sees at the dimensionless instant. one can “see” motion at a given dimensionless motion in time because. in a sense. resulting in an almost miniscule distance being travelled between P 2 and P1 at the arrow’s slower speed of 100 km/hr. or compressed in length. Xeno was therefore wrong because one could.778 x 103 cm/sec)(1. It would not take long for light to travel the difference in distance between those two sides of OMP 1. which represents the apparent compression of the front half of the arrow.778 x 103 cm/sec)(1. with the variables rearranged for calculation of the apparent compression of the arrow’s front half with C a equal to the apparent length of the compression (or reduction in front-half length. compression would provide the evidence that a given arrow is in motion.25 cm further to travel.000. as represented by P1 – P2).82 O Note: Diagram not drawn to scale began their journeys to the observer at different points in time in order to simultaneously arrive at the observer’s position. becomes: Ca Solving: Ca Ca Ca = (2. while it is extremely minute. all divided by the speed of light. which is a point wellunderstood by astronomers. That tiny. The front half of the arrow in motion will therefore appear ever-so-slightly shorter. as a time machine because time must pass for any image to reach an observer. Calculating Apparent Compression A mathematical relationship can be established that relates the difference between P 1 and P2. .001. An algebraic expression of that relationship.0 x 1010 cm/sec = 1. The ancients of Xeno’s time did not understand the speed of light and what individuals actually saw.157 x 10-7cm represents motion’s signature on the arrow in flight under the conditions specified and is represented by the line segment P 1P2. which means that there would be little time elapsing between the arrow’s point moving from P2 to P1.

it could be in orbit around the observer or an astronomical body on which the observer is located. a lengthening behind that point. The size of the experimental object can be varied to any degree desired as could its distance from the observer. must travel from different parts of the arrow in the thought-experiment as it is conceived. so the paradox falls because motion could be determined at a dimensionless instant of time.2492 x 103 times greater than the time that light would require to cross a distance equal to OP1 – OP2. Motion’s signature could be seen with technologically advanced enough equipment. The formula for velocity (v = d) will be used to compare t the travel times involved: Arrow point travel time P2 to P1 t = d v t = 1.2491 cm utilizing Pythagoras’s exceptionally wonderful theorem).278 x 103 cm/sec t = 4.25 x 1010 cm/sec)(1. Now.001.249 cm – 1.2492 cm) and the length of OP 2 (calculated to be 1.1641 x 10-12 sec (OP1 – OP2)(c) t = d v t = 1.3333 x 10-15 sec The arrow point travel time from P2 to P1 is 1. motion cannot be real because time consists of a string of such instants. an astute observer would note that another calculation must be made before the issue can be fully and finally resolved. The following calculation illustrates one of many different possibilities. or both. making it a real quantity and. it could even be replaced by a different object.83 its magnitude can be calculated. but it is not critical to the conclusion reached here about the “visibility” of motion at a dimensionless instant of time. All cases would demonstrate apparent compression and/or lengthening/expansion.001. but it happens due to the different distances that light. What would be seen is a bit counterintuitive – a shortening of the front half of the arrow in the direction opposite to its path of flight. though motion would still leave an imprint at a dimensionless instant of time. At the velocity of the arrow in this experiment. A slight alteration of the P1P2 distance would be needed to adjust the relationships so that the image from the adjusted P 2 position would arrive at the observer at the same time that the midpoint’s image arrived from M. but its velocity is increased to 0. it contradicts Xeno’s contention that. as such.0 x 10-4 cm 3. As one might surmise from the particulars of the thought-experiment.0 x 1010 cm/sec Ca = (2. An object’s closest point to its observer could be changed to any point on the object. since motion cannot be seen at a dimensionless instant of time. The object’s path need not even be straight.25 x 1010 cm/sec)( 1. OP 1 is minutely longer than OP2 due to P1P2 being a calculable reduction of P 1M. and therefore the arrow’s image. What one sees are images of parts (in reality an infinite number of parts) from ever-so minutely different times blending together to produce the image of the arrow that the observer sees. calculations will be done side-by-side comparing the time the arrow’s point takes to travel from P2 to P1 versus the difference in time that light would take to cover the difference in length of OP 1 (earlier calculated to be 1. it actually does not amount to a difference that would change the experiment’s conclusion. the numerical results could be changed by altering the experiment’s parameters.249 cm) .001. Based upon the mathematics of the Pythagorean Theorem. To demonstrate. but an observer would still note either a compression in front of the nearest point. In it.000. The object could meanwhile be moving towards the observer or on a path away from him.000 cm) 3.1568 x 10-8 cm 2.75c: Ca = v(OP1 – OM) c Ca = (2.0 x 1010cm/sec t = 3. the arrow and all of the other parameters from the original thought-experiment are retained.

the apparent compression (and. One of the quandaries of quantum mechanics arises with the location/velocity problem: an observer can determine either the location or the velocity of a particle . that motion was an illusion. 5 Aristotle. the exact location of the arrow cannot be pinpointed at any given moment because what is “seen” is in the past.org/analysis/reals/history/zeno. being well within the tolerances of most operating systems found at the macro level. different distances from an observer. but the time approaches when such concerns will become critical. due to just this particular observational phenomenon. 4 Physicists still debate the nature of time. 239b30. things are just not where they ought to be. the divisibility of space leads to the conclusion that motion is impossible. 6 The rounded figure used herein for the speed of light is the same for light travelling in a vacuum as it is for light travelling through Earth’s atmosphere. Due to the compression/expansion phenomenon resulting from motion. Due to forces and interactions. that. The same problem arises with Xeno’s arrow.masthcs. But such differences could become important at the nanotech scale when high velocities are involved. “Seeing” the arrow. likewise. Apparent compression and expansion do not create much of a problem with the sizes and speeds that normally exist in the macro world. but their existence illustrates how. A Bit of Quantum Weirdness Quantum weirdness occurs at the ultra-small level of atoms and subatomic particles. the apparent expansion behind the midpoint in this experiment) becomes very visible. different possible velocities for the arrow. Physics.0 x 1010cm/sec Ca = . The differences in observed and true location may be extremely small. Notes 1 The Elean School proposed that everything was one. does not help an observer predict its future location. it is part of Einstein’s space-time continuum. and different angular relationships between the arrow and the observer. but as OP2>OM due to the Pythagorean Theorem.but not both – because measuring one of those characteristics mediates the other. There would be a larger adjustment for the different lengths of OP1 and OP2.html 3 Aristotle was an early Greek philosopher-scientist who presented a series of arguments against Xeno’s paradoxes. will be measurable. It is now just a thought. physicists cannot even predict a particle’s location with great accuracy because too many factors need to be controlled. Xeno attempted to refute the non-Eleans by demonstrating the impossibilities behind their thinking. 2 http://www. approaching that of light. by pointing out fallacies in his logic (Physics).9368 cm At high velocities.84 3. for example. with improving nanotechnology tools. The existence of the compression/expansion observational phenomenon crushes the Fletcher’s Paradox because motion’s signature can be calculated and. but how it functions is still open to discussion. even at a dimensionless instant of time. there will be a noticeable compression/expansion effect and a clear refutation of Xeno’s reasoning in the Fletcher’s Paradox. and different parts of any object so observed are in slightly different pasts. . and that most things perceived were likewise illusions.

it ought to be habitable. Enjoy the article and consider its implications. It would be hotter than its near-twin. and insights as part of the ongoing process of science. but it is still beyond the inner edge of what astronomers call the “Goldilocks Zone. However. conversely and critically for the search for life elsewhere – what might have enabled Earth to develop so differently from Venus. What could have driven Venus down a pathway so different from that of Earth – or. which is still under construction. It is the first of a projected group of pieces concerning science that will comprise a modest section of this e-book.85 A Change of Pace As an astronomy student and laboratory assistant. or at most did not last for long. . The following brief article sketches out several reasons for the differences between the two planets and proposes the root cause behind those differences. Future research into the questions touched upon by the article will undoubtedly bring new theories. but temperatures there should have been within the range possible for life and its polar regions would probably not be much warmer than the tropics on Earth. what might have been apparently never was. Yes. An insight into the cause or causes of those differences might help astronomers gauge the possibility for success for the SETI project. with temperatures hot enough to melt lead and a poisonous/choking atmosphere of sulphuric acid and carbon dioxide. Venus is closer to the Sun. the Earth. It is just possible that Venus is the norm for what will likely be many Earth-sized planets to be discovered by astronomers employing ever-advancing technology. the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. clarifications.” where life ought to be possible. the author often wondered why Venus was so inhospitable to life while Earth was the only known home for it in the Solar System.

for the development of life on Earth is now gaining general acceptance. that presented the ideas on tectonics and continental drift that he first proposed in 1912. in an attempt to provide the broad context for the theories that it expresses. was Alfred Wegener’s 1915 book. It will do so in the context of the failure of life to take hold on Earth’s nearest planetary neighbor. when marine geology and the discovery that the continents appeared to move relative to the North Pole forced geologists to adopt Wegener’s ideas as the best explanation for the phenomena that they were discovering. It has been generally accepted that having the Moon in orbit around Earth has stabilized its axial tilt.” leaving the possibility that Venus may well have once harbored life forms similar to those found on Earth during the early days of biological evolution on our planet. Scientists have likewise theoretically connected tidal pools that fluctuate daily with the evolution of life on Earth. and not Earth. How Earth is being affected by the evolution and aging of that relationship will be tied into the generally accepted explanation of what went wrong for life on Venus and how Venus. which plays a critical role in this paper. Venus. This paper. explaining a broader scope for the Earth-Moon relationship than is currently accepted. contrasting geological and biological conditions on Earth and Venus. Computer simulations that have modeled a violent lunar birth have likewise now achieved widespread acceptance in the astronomical community. or at least extremely beneficial. will first explore planetary evolution and the Moon’s connection to it. That the Moon’s existence has been necessary. The ensuing paper will optimistically add another credential to our satellite’s resume of accomplishments in fostering life on Earth. 2011 Introduction Appreciation for the role that lunar gravity has played in making Earth more hospitable to life has been increasing in recent years. His ideas did not gain academic credibility until fifty years later. Many theories take time to attain acceptance in the general scientific community. Why Not Twin Earths? . as is the current case with Venus and was apparently the case with Mars in that planet’s geological past. might provide the basic model for the viability of life on the escalating number of extra-solar planets being discovered. keeping the planet more consistently around a value – 23 o 27’ – that provides seasonal variations without extremes. The origin of continents and oceans (originally published in German).86 Implications of Venus Being a Failed Home for Life c. which the author dubs “the failed home for life. It will then move forward. One of those.

even if a collision knocked it into a greater tilt at some point in its past. completely different trail towards hostility to terrestrial-type life.00 AU) Earth = 1. solid inner core N 2.87 Comparing what we know about Earth and Venus.if our understanding of solar system history is correct . If a hell exists in the Solar System. molten outer core.6 x 106 km (1.had it not been for the Cytherean1 surface temperature and atmosphere. lacking a stabilizing satellite. combined with its long nights. but those average figures do not take into consideration either substantial variations on each planet due to equatorial versus polar insolation levels or for the long Cytherean night. even a casual review of the table’s data would suggest that life ought to have achieved a beachhead on our closest planetary neighbor . it exists on our nearest planetary neighbor. Earth’s axial tilt of 23. The Cytherean tilt of 177. Lead can melt on its surface and the atmosphere is an inhospitable mix of an extremely thick CO2 shroud topped by a sulphuric acid cloud cover.2 x 106 km (0. mostly weathered. H2O.72 AU) 1. Unfortunately .00 thin crust. mantle. Historically. H2SO4 then probably the same as Earth’s hot spots Cratering minor. trace CO2 H2. O2. even if just barely by Earth standards.0 15o C 12. or the amount of solar radiation received at our neighbor’s distance from the Sun is almost twice as great as that received by the Earth.104 km 0.3 o. it is obvious that insolation. Something therefore must have happened differently on the two planets for Earth to have travelled one path towards an abundance of life forms and Venus another. it would seem that the latter ought to be a reasonable candidate for life beyond the Earth. which ought to contribute to atmospheric and surface cooling. mantle. leaving large regions seasonally temperate. Table I sets forth important similarities and differences between the two planets including the two stark differences of temperature and present-day atmospheric content. volcanic resurfacing ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Significant differences highlighted in red Examining Table I’s data. hot spots Venus 108. the Cytherean axial tilt was not likely 177 o at all times. Table I Comparing Earth and Venus Characteristic Distance from Sun Relative Insolation Mean Surface Temperature Planetary Diameter Mass Global Structure Contemporary Atmospheric Composition Early Atmospheric Composition Volcanism Earth 149. it probably varied over time. He active plate tectonics.756 km Earth = 1. subducted minor.5o allows for frozen polar zones and torrid equatorial conditions.9 x Earth 464o C 12. solid core CO2.82 x Earth thin crust (but thicker than Earth’s). should produce a variation there also. but that is extremely far from reality.

4 Gamma rays plus ultraviolet light and other damaging radiation from the Sun would have had an easy time breaking down molecules in the early atmosphere because the Earth’s still undifferentiated core would not have been able to generate the magnetic lines of force that protect the planet today and there would not have been enough oxygen to create the O3 (ozone) that today blocks out much of the harmful ultraviolet. all of Venus is excessively hot due to the high atmospheric CO 2 content.3 The Accretion Era The four terrestrial planets accreted into rock and metal bodies in which the metal gradually differentiated down into the core of each planet. molten metal outer core surrounding a solid inner core for its generation. Both undoubtedly began through the aggregation of dust. planetary compositions were generally similar. aided by the heat generated by the accretion process and by gravity. The entire accretion process took something on the order of 100 million years to complete. water would have existed in the inner system. none of the early terrestrial planets had inner dynamos capable of generating strong magnetic fields. Mercury. However. merging bodies. There appears to be general agreement in planetary astronomy that active plate tectonics on Earth. radiation would have disassociated the water molecules allowing most of the hydrogen to escape. Something happened differently on the two planets to smother Venus in that suffocating CO2 while Earth was left with just enough CO 2 to support plant life while substantial molecular oxygen facilitated the rise of the animals. At one point in the latter part of the process there were up to 100 planetoids orbiting in the inner Solar System. based upon the best and latest scientific evidence. or Jupiter in the case of Mars. is the significant difference between the two planets.6 What is accepted as fact in astronomy today is that the accretion process rapidly assembled the planets through a process of collisions. At some point in its very early history Earth was hit a glancing blow by a Mars-sized protoplanet. Brief Planetary Histories Much of the geological histories of Earth and Venus. Earth had an early H2 and He atmosphere and probably also had some water.88 for the cause of life. due to the lack of magnetospheres in those very early times. contrasted with now inactive tectonics on Venus. 7 The accreting planets would have been left very hot. to trap heat. planetoids. with the collision resulting in one or possibly two moons partially comprised of material from the interloper and partially made up of Earth crust and mantle. Being inside the solar system’s ice zone boundary. with differences being modest results of the varying planetary masses and their distances from the Sun. then planetesimals. as is currently taking place around younger stars such as Beta Pectoris.5 Venus. With the Asteroid Belt composed primarily of rock or nickel/iron bodies and inner Mercury having a metallic core. and Mars were undoubtedly molded by the same processes that shaped the Earth during those early times. but the difference is very modest. The heat of the collisions that resulted from that accretion process would have driven water – as steam – out of the condensing bodies and into their atmospheres where. The following analysis proposes that the existence of Earth’s large lunar companion is the basic cause for the Earth’s hospitable conditions for life and it suggests that this finding will have implications in the search for intelligent life beyond the Solar System (SETI) and in the determination of the remaining time of habitability for life on Earth. water would have been gravitationally attracted to the growing planetesimals and been included in the early. but it would not likely have lasted long. and finally protoplanets. solar radiation would have driven the two lightest elements off into interplanetary space and broken down the stability of the water molecules. no available evidence suggests that the four terrestrial planets formed in any radically different way from each other or that they were formed from significantly different materials. A strong planetary magnetic field requires a spinning.8 The “Billiard Hall” Era . As the solar nebula condensed. While there is no detectable molecular oxygen in Venus’s atmosphere. as a greenhouse gas. would have the two neighbors experiencing many similar creative processes. with surfaces comprised of molten rock and minerals. building ever-larger bodies. Earth wound up somewhat larger than Venus. because their interiors were still in the process of differentiating. considerable oxygen is bound molecularly to Cytherean carbon to produce the planet’s crushing atmospheric pressure and the hot-house effect that results from carbon dioxide’s ability.2 but the root cause behind Earth’s active plate tectonics versus Venus’ now apparent lack thereof remains an open question.

which would not easily yield underlying evidence of magnetic orientation in the substrata. and the power of the early solar wind would have restricted its mass. some evidence for ancient activity Dormant now. Mercury’s mass would also have been restricted due to its proximity to the Sun. Some divergence in geological history would be possible. it is logical to assume that they accreted from basically the same elements and compounds and it is not unreasonable to assume that they would have wound up with similar masses and volumes. but lost it. Nothing in current scientific thinking provides a reason for the pathways of Venus and Earth to diverge so substantially from the time of their accretion through to the modern epoch. The Cytherean ionosphere partly mitigates the absence of a magnetosphere.2 grams/cm3 in comparison with Earth’s 5. but the massive lava flows that have covered Venus after the planet lost its field would have left no apparent orientation to any iron particles in the upper portions of the planet’s thick crust. Venus’s density of approximately 5. According to the most recent thinking. Magnetic fields arise. a great deal of turbidity and convection takes place in the Earth’s core. the two planets ought to have very similar compositions and structures. or in greatly different proportions.and s-waves. The author theorizes that Venus also once had a magnetosphere like the other planets. from turbulence within a terrestrial planet’s liquid metallic outer core. 27 With Venus and Earth condensing and accreting just 41 million kilometers apart in the solar nebula. unlike on Earth where most harmful radiation is blocked. Earth’s field helps protect the planet’s surface from the solar wind. as scientists believe. Iron particles in the crust will align with a planet’s magnetic field.26 With similar densities and with births from the same section of the early proto-solar disc. Among the Solar System’s eight planets. neither Venus nor Mars has a notable magnetic field. though geological evidence exists pointing to an ancient magnetic field for Mars. This is a second very significant difference. Mercury had been larger than it is today.25 Venus lacks a magnetic field and accompanying magnetosphere. but it lost considerable mass from its early crust and mantle through a collision with a planetoid following the period during which Mercury’s metallic core had differentiated out from its mantle and crustal materials. What are still primitive computer models agree in their general outlines with what is theorized to exist within the core and with what is needed to create Earth’s magnetic field. with any traces of its prior existence being buried deep within the planet’s unusually thick crust that was in part built up from the planet’s periodic widespread lava flows. That lack of a protective magnetic field is attributed to a cooling of the Cytherean metallic core. That being the case. and it provides an additional clue as to why Venus and Earth followed such strikingly divergent evolutionary pathways. but Venus and Earth have followed strikingly different pathways with significantly different results. as is summarized in Table II. but possibly periodic . Mars’s size was meanwhile affected by its proximity to Jupiter and the disruptive influence of the powerful Jovian gravitational force.92 Earth possesses a very strong magnetic field. when Mercury and Mars are dissimilar from Earth primarily in size but not in composition. The existence of a liquid metal core within the Earth has long been determined through studies of earthquake p.5 gm/cm 3 argues strongly that the two planets have very similar overall compositions. With temperatures equaling those of the Sun’s outer layer. generating the magnetosphere which traps the potentially harmful particles streaming in from the Sun. it is hard to picture how the two planets would have condensed out of different materials. Venus does not. Root Cause of the Terran-Cytherean Differences Earth and Venus condensed from the same proto-solar disc of gas and dust in basically the same neighborhood. both the circumference of the inner planet’s orbit. its proximity to the solar gravity well. but damaging solar radiation that would destroy terrestrial-type life does reach down through the planet’s atmosphere. Table II Significant Earth-Venus Differences Characteristic Plate Tectonics Volcanic Activity Earth Active Worldwide activity Venus Inactive.

Stars are energy generators and storage batteries that produce heat through their nuclear reactions. which in turn boiled off all of the planet’s water and allowed the water molecules to be broken up in the planet’s atmosphere and the hydrogen to escape into space because the Cytherean gravity was not strong enough to retain the lighter and most common isotope of that lightest of all elements. thereby allowing life to develop and thrive there? Remembering that plate tectonics are a cooling process. O2. The Cytherean mantle began to cool and its plastic asthenosphere began to harden. Gravitational energy. Following the Accretion Era. Venus ought to have had oceans. remained to resurface the planet. if any had arisen there [and it did arise very early on Earth. To understand how. which are often referred to as entropy. That made the difference. and atmosphere recapitulated from Table I for ease of reader review. as determined by their masses. would have been an easier target for those icy bodies to hit due to the Cytherean orbit being smaller than Earth’s. builds up the heat in a nascent star until it reaches the . only periodic lava flows. In the case of astronomical bodies. H2O. The core likewise cooled and solidified. but it does dissipate through various means. volcanic activity. the inner Solar System then experienced the LHB. something must have been generating additional heat for the Earth that was not doing the same for Venus. Venus gradually lost its magnetic field and magnetosphere. through compression of the proto-stellar material. which the author hypothesizes put humanity’s home on a different pathway from its twin: Earth has a major moon while Venus has no satellite whatsoever. H2SO4 clouds No H2O Thicker than Earth’s Not believed to have significant plasticity Solidified metal _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Plate tectonics. which brought water in the form of ice from the Kuiper Belt due to gravitational disruption of that region by Neptune and the channeling influence of the gravitational attractions of the three other giants planets. creating substantial hydrospheres. They are not so much electrical batteries – though electricity is involved in some of their mechanics – they are heat storage batteries. Both Venus and Earth should have acquired considerable water. fusing their raw materials into ever-heavier elements until their nuclear reactions can no longer sustain them and they are then forced onto one of several possible evolutionary pathways. Heat can be stored much like electrical charge. no mechanism remained to cycle Cytherean carbon. Venus should therefore have received more water than Earth for the same geometrical reason that it receives greater insolation than its outer neighbor. as testified by Australian stromatolites]. As Venus cooled. Venus began cooling internally faster than Earth. Earth and Venus do have one very significant difference. With plate tectonics halted on Venus. but it was shortly after the LHB that the planets’ pathways diverged. which in turn meant that the planet’s surface would have steadily less protection from solar radiation that would be damaging to life. one must first recognize that all astronomical bodies are storage batteries. Venus. with its core cooling. surprisingly. 28 At the same time. small CO2 Abundant H2O Moderate thickness Plasticity in upper region (Asthenosphere) Molten metal surrounding solid inner core Inactive Heavy CO2 concentration. so the planet’s atmosphere and surface heated up through a runaway greenhouse effect. utilizing heat that rises from below through convective currents to drive the plate motions. which would originally have helped lubricate tectonic activity. or ‘froze. heat will dissipate until it is evenly distributed.’ Tectonics is a cooling process. that heat is distributed out into space.29 The Ultimate Question What mechanism enabled Earth to retain its internal heat. Venus became inhospitable to life while Earth’s plate tectonics continued functioning through to today and its outer core remained molten enough to permit the planet to retain its magnetic protection from the solar wind. like those of the Deccan Traps. creating a greater density of incoming bodies being attracted sunward by Sol’s gravity. Like a gas released into a large enclosure.93 Magnetic Field/ Magnetosphere Atmosphere Hydrosphere Crust Mantle Core Strong Activity N2. plate tectonics would have slowed. then halted.

they could search for Earths with relatively large satellites like the Moon. the outer core is subject to lunar gravity. The third great ocean has by far the greatest mass. after sufficient time. Plate tectonics will therefore have a limited remaining lifespan on Earth. That density wave would create pressure against both the mantle above and the inner core below. in turn. Searchers could also seek out “Super Earths” which ought to have enough mass to retain heat from their initial formation and enough radioactive material to have sufficient internal heat to drive plate tectonics without the existence of a major satellite. like eddies. any other explanation will be considerably more complicated. As the density wave passes through the outer core. It possesses a viscosity lower than that of water and has a thickness of 2.97 and Earth’s rotation. Having a low viscosity. Following Occam’s precept. as the Moon has fostered life on Earth. Due to local factors the magnitude of the water ocean’s tidal bulge varies by location. actually run ahead of the Moon’s local zenith. 39 A combination of the two strategies – seeking planets with large satellites plus greater size than Earth – could also work.370 mi). Earth’s great ocean of air is also attracted by the Moon’s gravity. Earth’s outer core comprises an ocean of molten metal – primarily iron – that completely envelops the solid inner core and is. of course. only inside the Earth that heat is not wasted. Similarly. but there would be limits imposed by excessive plate tectonics and volcanism that would inhibit the rise of life rather than foster it. and downward into the inner core helping to slow the outward spread of its solidification. Considerable evidence exists elsewhere in the Solar System that validates gravitational heating enough to make it feasible for it to have been an important factor in sustaining plate tectonics. The age of the planet would also be an important factor because moons can gradually spiral away from their primary and because plate tectonics are a cooling process. Instead. some mechanism must exist to explain the difference between Earth’s still-viable plate tectonics and the lack of them on Venus. from their inner-system proximity. Neither the water-ocean nor the atmosphere is bounded as their upper surfaces can expand. What Is Ahead for Earth? . The density wave would also generate friction as the current created by the moving density wave pushed laterally along the underside of the mantle. and therefore the more likely correct one. but it does help mix the heat and may well add to the generation of the Terran magnetic field.310 km (1. 38 the atmospheric ocean has the least impact upon the Earth’s overall heat budget. The foregoing means that those searching for Earth-sized worlds would need to modify their searches in one of two ways. but because it is bounded on its top and bottom by essentially unyielding. convection and conduction push heat up into the mantle. Pressure would increase the heat in the molten outer core and in both the lower mantle and the upper part of the inner core. with the ocean’s water against the yielding atmosphere and the atmosphere ultimately against the vacuum of space. That density wave may be thought of as a piston creating pressure in a cylinder. best strategies for locating life-bearing planets. given the known and hypothesized factors. like a manually operated tire pump does when it creates pressure to force air into a tire. While it certainly will be argued that the Moon’s influence on Earth’s internal heat budget is not that great. but the existence of such moons would give greater hope for life on any worlds that they do discover. The pump’s cylinder reacts to the pressure and friction with the creation of waste heat. eventually helping to drive plate tectonics. Earth has had more internal heat than its near-twin even though. in its wake. Seeking Earths with large moons and Super Earths would be the likeliest. First. making the outer core harder to model. any planet’s interior would cool off and the planet would become less hospitable because the tectonic process would no longer remove carbon that would otherwise contribute to a CO2-driven greenhouse. solid material. be possible spectral signatures for oxygen on habitable worlds that would also help distinguish habitable worlds from their inhospitable siblings. lunar gravitational heating represents the simplest explanation. and pressure creates heat. bounded by Earth’s mantle. planets of Earth-Venus masses without satellites would very probably be barren. it leaves turbulence. requiring greater certainty in its data. As the atmosphere involves less mass than the water ocean. the two planets ought to have similar compositions. All of this suggests that more computer power will be needed to fully model Earth’s heat budget and how that heat mechanically drives the plate tectonics that so fortuitously accommodate terrestrial life. There would. it reacts to lunar attraction with tidal bulges that are forced into becoming density waves bounded or constrained by the mantle above and the inner core below. That could require more sensitive equipment than would be necessary to search for extra-solar Earths. there would be pressure and friction applied against the surface of the solid inner core. geologically speaking. barring some other mechanism for limiting the CO2 build-up in their atmospheres. The data concerning Earth suggests that radioactive heating and residual accretion heat ought to have lessened as they did on Venus and that gravitational heating has also decreased substantially since the Moon has steadily receded from its remaining parent.

Liz Kruesi. leading some geologists to believe that it was once covered by an ocean [see “Borealis basin” and Chandler]. is retained more easily. was said to have been the mother of the Moon. An ocean forming in the basin would have done much to erode away impact scars from the event and any impacts from the LHB.000 km in diameter and it struck Mars at a 45 o angle. As Earth and Mercury would still have been semi-plastic at the times of those proposed early collisions. 2011. the planetary scarring from those impacts would have filled in. It is at least 3. negating the need for plate tectonics and volcanic resurfacing to eliminate impact scars from that collision. covering roughly 40% of the planet’s surface. for the planet’s diameter. proportionally larger than Earth’s. like Earth. According to recent information. February. which means that it would have little chance of retaining a satellite. 13 The Borealis Basin was recently discerned from data provided by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Mars Global Surveyor. There would have been some reduction in the Red Planet’s mass. Venus is now believed to have a totally solid core because the planet has no magnetic field.99 5 The turbulence and spinning of the outer liquid core generates the strong electric currents that must surround a spinning solid inner core in order for a terrestrial planet to generate a magnetic field. The terrestrial bodies accreted within a 100 million year span that began with the outset of the condensation of the solar nebula. discovered through data from Mars orbiters. 8 The giant planets are believed to have accreted faster than the terrestrial ones. Satellites generally have to orbit within the inner half of the sphere in order to have a chance for a stable orbit. a Titan. Project scientists determined that the impacting object was at least 2. creating the Moon as one of the results of that collision.34. . Deimos and Phobos may well have aggregated from materials blown into orbit from one of those collisions. Earth captured a very small asteroid from near-Earth orbit. p. That strongly suggests that Venus possessed a magnetic field while its interior cooling was still incomplete. Santa Cruz. Phobos’s interior is about one-third porous space. the moons did not become major satellites. 6 Mercury seems to be a modest exception because its core is. being heavier than regular hydrogen. 9 There were approximately 100 times as many asteroids and Kuiper bodies at that time than now remain in the Solar System 10 Theia. with one with a Pluto-sized planetesimal creating a vast crater or depression known as the Borealis Basin [above]. but with less material available and Jupiter exerting its influence. The northern hemisphere basin it left behind presents the smoothest terrain on the planet. hence the selection of that name for the protoplanet that collided with Earth. either no moon formed or. It can serve as a marker for early water in the inner Solar System.500 km across by 10. 12 The Hill Sphere is that region surrounding a planet where the planet’s gravity exceeds that of the Sun. being exceptionally close to the Sun has a miniscule Hill Sphere. with the tiny moonlet going into a polar orbit for 13 months in 2006-7 before it escaped back into a heliocentric orbit. leaving nothing other than Earth’s satellite and Mercury’s relatively large metallic core as testimony to those events. suffered a collision with another large. Mercury. More recently. or freezing). Inner core cooling had to have begun before a magnetic field could have been generated. “A second moon for Earth?” Astronomy. And Martin Jutzi of Switzerland’s University of Bern have run computer simulations that indicate a high likelihood that Earth’s present satellite formed from the collision of two predecessors in close orbit to each other. As they are not in retrograde orbits.9 billion years old and it covers an area of 8.600 km long. But in Mercury’s case. it did not remain in orbit very long due to the Sun’s proximity and the disruptive power of its intense gravitational field. 14 Mars is believed to have experienced at least five major collisions. 11 Planetary scientist Erik Asphaug of the University of California. Terrestrial planets cool from the outside in (crustal cooling) and the inside out (core cooling. but it would have been smaller than the major collisions that blew off considerable parts of the crusts and mantles of both Earth and Mercury. planetsized body that blew off much of the planet’s crust and mantle. but astronomers now hypothesize that Mercury. 7 Deuterium (2H). if one formed.

creating a lunar magnetic field [King]. 18 In a July. especially during winter. Meanwhile. p. Christina Dwyer from the University of California at Santa Cruz and by Michael Le Bars of the Research Institute for Out-of-Equilibrium Phenomena of Marseille.30. In any case. The viscosity of the outer core would moderate drastic changes in the orientation of the inner core’s axis of rotation. Magellan mission gravity measurements have indicated that the Cytherean crust is 50 km thick. providing evidence for an earlier existence of a Cytherean hydrosphere. The new NASA rover Curiosity will search Mars for signs of ancient life. p. 23 Earth’s oceanic crust. coming to different conclusions about how the magnetization came about.may show evidence of much earlier plate tectonics. The inner and outer cores need not be locked onto one axis of rotation with the mantle and crust. That thinking is not too different than that expressed by a team led by Dr. mass-wise. That would not be impossible. October 11. which comprises roughly three-quarters of the planet’s total crust. That result would be expected if the planet’s interior was cooling while declining convection was no longer powering plate tectonics. Alessandro Morbidelli. which is not as quick to escape into space as the more common lighter isotope of hydrogen. 17 Jupiter had a tremendous gravitational impact upon the Asteroid Belt. Jupiter’s orbit would have shrunk if it was gravitationally casting more asteroidal material. 25 Earth’s magnetic field does not have the same axis as the planet’s overall axis of rotation. 2012 that ice and organic compounds had been found in deep polar craters based upon observations for which they are the best fit answers. 2011. The 3 km deep crater is in permanent shadow and is therefore cold enough for ice to be retained. near the southern lunar pole. It has also slowly wandered over time relative to the geographical poles. 2012 report in Geophysical Research Letters. The two axes could have been set on different orientations by earlier impacts that came after the differentiation of iron and nickel out of the mantle and into the core. . 24 Continental-sized uplands – Ishtar Terrain in the Cytherean southern hemisphere and Aphrodite Terra along the equator . Both tackled the cause behind the magnetization of some of the rocks brought back from the Moon by Apollo 11. 2011. www. 16Liz Kruesi. 20 Arecibo’s radio telescope had previously imaged locations at both of Mercury’s poles that had a high likelihood of being ice. no sign exists of active tectonics either today or in recent geologic times.” Astronomy. solid core rotates on a different axis than the Earth as a whole.co. which at times becomes supersaturated. 19 Ice can be found in the higher Martian latitudes. The rover will investigate clay-like sediments in the Gale Crater that could have sheltered life.” The New York Times. but it would not prevent variability in the magnetic axis’ alignment relative to the planetary axis. which would have required H 2O. NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has provided data that indicates that Shackleton Crater.100 15 Originally developed at the Cote d’Azur Observatory near Nice. “Captured moons of the giant planets. given that the outer core is molten. the European Space Agency’s Express orbiter discovered that much greater amounts of water than suspected exist in the Martian atmosphere.telegraph. runs 5-10 km in thickness while continental crust (the continents and the continental shelves) is 30-50 km thick. out of solar orbit than it was sending Kuiper and Oort objects sunward. has crater walls composed of 5-10 percent water by weight. Hal Levinson. the researchers posited that the Moon’s mantle rotated against the outer core. D3. the Nice Model was proposed by R. France. suggesting that the inner. and Kleomenis Tsiganis in three papers published in Nature in 2005.uk/science/space/9713116/ice-found-on-Mercury. February. NASA’s Messenger probe team announced November 29.html 21 Deuterium. 22 Reported online in Nature and in “A Delivery From Space That Made a Big Splash. has been detected in the upper levels of the Cytherean atmosphere. Gomes. Variations in rotation are thus not judged to be impossible.

The current rate is approximately 3. which in turn would have meant greater internal heat production from the effects of lunar gravity on the Earth. leaving the atmospheric oxygen free to bind with other elements. Van Hoolst from the 2010 Copernicus meeting at http://meetings.” http://phys.101 26 Some of that density difference would be accounted for through the Moon’s violent birth.18.html 30 Those three elements are known to be rock-loving rather than metal-loving.” Astronomy. with lower-density Terran crust contributing to the Moon’s mass. BBC News “Moons like Earth’s could be more common than we thought. Rivoldini. The amount of generated heat depends on the internal structure of the planet. “Enceladus is a snowy moon.uk/news/science-environment-13609153 reports on computer simulations run at the University of Zurich’s Institute of Theoretical Physics and the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Sciences. Tidal forces vary inversely by the cube of the distance. 35 Bill Andrews. So the Earth has to keep regenerating. In return. 33 Interestingly.org/news/2010-planetarymagnetic-fields. February. Liz Kruesi. which means that lunar tidal forces would have been considerably greater in the past. February. and therefore the inferences we draw from the about the Earth are going to be questionable. 28 Gravity did not retain hydrogen in Cytherean atmosphere.21.pdf. to other proposed explanations for lunar magnetism lasting longer than it should have due to a molten outer core. because “the viscosity of the liquid core is so low – more fluid than even water – the stirring motions there span the whole range all the way down to one-meter scales. 38 That can be seen by the entire mass above a given location at sea level producing only one standard atmosphere of pressure while just 33 feet of water generates one atmosphere of additional pressure above a diver. nearly twice that of number two Titan’s 0. Another problem is with the viscosity of the outer core used for the models. particularly carbon. “Mysterious water on Enceladus results from lunar ‘wobble. 29 Geophysics professor Bruce Buffett at UC Berkeley’s Department of Earth and Planetary Science notes that the cores like Earth’s that still generate magnetic fields need to keep generating heat: “Planets do die. and T. 34 See. The authors state: “Tidal forces from the Sun deform Mercury and because of internal friction generate heat. 2011. there is some evidence for Earth stirring up the lunar interior. and on the tidal potential. They run out of heat and wind down. 31 Professor Buffett (see note 29) meanwhile sees computer modeling of the Earth’s interior in its infancy. disrupting the orbits of the planetesimals and planetoids that aggregated into Mars would not be beyond its power.co. Its orbital eccentricity would contribute to the Moon’s ability to stir up Earth’s interior and thereby generate internal heat.” One serious problem with the modeling is the scale on which the planet’s interior can be modeled.0549.2 cm per year.html 32 Lunar recession has been measured by laser ranging employing mirrors left on the Moon by Apollo mission astronauts. 2012.bbb.” www. “I would claim that the models are very far from being realistic.copernicus. with the full range of probabilities running from 1 in 45 to 1 in 4. p. That accounts for their abundance in the mantle versus the core. which would give a much closer past orbital distance regardless of whether or not the rate varied in the past. “Past and present tidal dissipation on Mercury. which the models cannot handle. 36 37 Jason Palmer. one needs to consider Terran gravity churning up the lunar interior and thereby allowing the Moon to retain a molten outer core like Earth’s longer than original thought through gravitational heating.” A. for example. The simulations found a 1 in 12 chance of generating a system in which a planet with at least half of Earth’s mass had a satellite of at least half the Moon’s mass arose.0288. its rheology. p.org/news/2010-planetary-magneticfields. M.’” Astronomy. Beuthe. the Moon has the greatest orbital eccentricity of the Solar System’s larger planetary satellites at 0. 27 Jupiter has enough gravitational force to affect Mercury’s orbit.org/epsc2010/abstracts/EPSC2010-671. .” http://phys.

The foregoing solutions have been put forward for your enjoyment.D1. pp. Prospect s for life might therefore require a limited range of planetary sizes without the existence of a large satellite. “The Enigma 1.” Scientific American.” The New York Times. but that pattern was not applied previously in conjunction with the pattern of embedded (not spiral) squares that establishes the problem. easy to spot in base-6 but exceedingly difficult with which to work in base-10. 2010. mostly because he enjoys difficult challenges. it had just not been seen in the manner that would contribute most efficiently to its solution. Reducing problems (or systems) to their smallest components has thus been the author’s strategy. The author will add to them as he is able to do so. p. May 29. One needs to analyze how they work to solve them. Obviously. for example. in essence discovering the system that drives a particular problem. dampening any magnetosphere and limiting opportunities for life thereon. 40 Natalie Angier. He has been one who takes on seemingly impossible. That was already known to mathematicians. the problem was not impossible. Author’s Biographical Information At the advice of others. .38-46. In his work on Ulam’s Spiral Square. If someone has a seemingly impossible problem requiring analytical help. he found a repetition (read modularity) of the positions in the number system that permits primes. the author has included biographical information by way of his professional resume. the author is not a mathematician or a scientist per se. or at least fairly difficult. While having had a career in government research as well as a lesser one in education. Sasselov and Diana Valencia hypothesize that super-Earths would have more radioactive materials and greater retained heat with which to generate more vigorous mantle churning. Planetary cores of super-Earths could also be completely solidified through great pressure. challenges. He disassembles problems into their smallest data components and then examines how that data interrelates. “Planets We Could Call Home. August. they may contact the author via e-mail. Problems are systems. 2012.102 39 Harvard researchers Dimitar D.800 Miles Below Us.

103

Albert H. deAprix, Jr. 7 Wallace Street Scotia, NY 12302-2308

Education:
M.A. Political Science. Graduate School of Public Affairs, SUNY Albany. Concentrations in American political/governmental system, political history, behavior analysis, and research methodology. Received research assistantship. Masters’ essay examined history and impact of segregationist attitudes on Southern voting behavior. B.A. Ohio Wesleyan University. History and journalism majors; political science, education, English, and astronomy minor equivalents. Copy editing intern Schenectady Union Star as part of journalism major. Student teacher at Olentangy H.S. (Ohio). Astronomy Department laboratory (teaching) assistant. Kappa Delta Pi (education) and Phi Alpha Theta (history) honoraries. History senior research seminar examined segregationist voting in Alabama; journalism senior seminar tested for bias in 1948 presidential campaign news coverage. Possess a New York State Permanent Certificate in secondary social studies (7-12). Scored 283 on teaching methodologies, 286 on LAST, and 287 on social studies content examinations (100-300 scoring curve) taken for recertification.

104 Government and Management Training Received:
Intergovernmental Personnel Act training in civil service management with N.Y.S. Civil Service Commission. Intensive six-month program; examined legal basis for classification, position classification techniques, designing and conducting examinations, and salary studies. Collective Bargaining with U.S. Civil Service Commission and with Pace University Institute for Sub-urban Governance. Both programs dealt with collective bargaining techniques and fiscal research in the public sector. Governmental Affairs Leadership Seminar with U.S. Jaycees. participation in politics and development of model legislatures. Washington training program focused on

Hugh O’Brian Foundation Leadership training seminar for East Region. Dealt with program administration and leadership training techniques. Officers’ Training School with U.S. Jaycees. Focused on leadership training, finance, and program management. Legislative Functions with Cornell Cooperative Extension and N.Y.S. School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Examined operations of county legislatures and other local policy-making bodies.

Government Research, Policymaking, and Administrative Experience:
Local Fiscal Impact Note Coordinator: (N.Y.S. Senate). Examined all state legislation to determine if it had a local fiscal impact, required production of fiscal notes, maintained database, and advised legislative staffs on how to calculate fiscal impacts. Undertook special research projects regarding legislative issues. Researched special reports. Policy Analyst/Research Associate: (N.Y.S. Senate Research Service/Task Force on Critical Problems). Duties included redesigning and managing Senate’s model student legislature and supervising the staff developing educational packets for participants. Conducted research on a wide variety of local government, public employee, and economic development issues and wrote papers from five to 200+ pages on issues of legislative concern. Municipal Personnel Technician: (Schenectady County Civil Service Commission and County Manager’s Office). Duties involved conducting personnel studies and deriving cost estimates for County Manager, researching contract negotiation data, and representing county on Governor’s Manpower Development Council. Resolved a longstanding scheduling problem for county air traffic personnel. Schenectady County Legislator: Scotia-Glenville-Niskayuna Held numerous leadership positions, including: Majority Leader, Deputy Chairman Chaired Education and Planning (included library and college matters) and Ways and Means Committees Special accomplishments included: Chaired selection process for new county manager Reapportioned county legislature after Board of Elections was unable undertake it Led legislative efforts that established Niskayuna and Glenville branch libraries Led intergovernmental cooperation efforts Served on interview and selection panels Personnel Director Information Technology Manager Co-chaired Cultural and Educational Strategy Subcommittee, Hunter Plan Implementation Task Force Oversaw county contract negotiations team for county legislature

105
SUNY Albany Research Assistant to Dr. Clifford Brown on his election analysis, The Jaws of Victory monitored presidential polling, assembled contribution data

Teaching and Education Experience: