Proof by induction of the strong Goldbach’s conjecture

Douadi Mihoubi

To cite this version:

Douadi Mihoubi. Proof by induction of the strong Goldbach’s conjecture. 2016. �hal-01251852v2�

HAL Id: hal-01251852

https://hal.science/hal-01251852v2
Preprint submitted on 8 Jan 2016 (v2), last revised 23 Jan 2016 (v3)

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Proof by Mathematical induction of the strong
Goldbachs conjecture
Douadi MIHOUBI
LMPA, the University of M’sila, 28000 M’sila, Algeria.
mihoubi douadi@yahoo.fr
January 8, 2016

Abstract
To proving the conjecture, we consider for any even natural num-
ber 2n > 4, with n > 2, the finite sequence of natural numbers
Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈{1,2,...,m} defined by: si (n) = 2n − pi where pi is the
ith prime number in the finite strictly ordered sequence of primes

Pm := p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < ... < pm

where m = π (2n) denotes the number of primes p such that p < 2n.
Using two stages of proofs: the proof by contradiction and mathemat-
ical induction, we proof that: for any natural number n > 2, there
exists at least one prime number sr (n) = 2n − pr belonging to the
sequence Sm (n), which confirms the result 2n = sr (n) + pr where pr
is the r−th prime number of the sequence Pm . this result confirms
the validity of the Goldbach’s statement which state that:
every even integer 2n ≥ 4, with n ≥ 2, is the sum of two primes.

Key Words: Well-ordering (N, <), basic concepts and theorems on

number theory, the indirect and inductive proofs on natural numbers.
AMS 2010: 11AXX, 11p32, 11B37.

1
1 A brief history and some results on the con-
jecture

Historically, from the reference [7], the conjecture dating since 1742 in a letter
addressed to Euler from Goldbach expresses the following fact:
Any natural number n > 5 is the sum of three primes.
The mathematician Euler replied that this fact is equivalent to the following
statement:
Every even integer 2n ≥ 4 is the sum of two primes.
Since then, three major lines of attack to this famous conjecture emerged :
”asymptotic study”, ”almost primes study” and finally ”basis”.

The first result, obtained in the asymptotic case is due to Hardy and Lit-
tlewood in 1923 under the consideration of Riemann hypothesis. In 1937,
Vingradov showed the same result without using this assumption.
Theorem 1 (asymptotic theorem). There exists a natural number n0 such
that every odd number n ≥ n0 is the sum of three primes.
r
pei i (where each pi is a prime) is called a k-
Q
A natural number n =
i=1
r
P
almost prime when ei = k; the set of k-almost primes is denoted by Pk .
i=1
The approach via almost-primes consists in showing that there exist h, k ≥ 1
such that every sufficiently large even integer is in the set Ph + Pk of sums
of integers of Ph and Pk . The first result in this line of study was obtained
by Brun in 1919 by showing that: every sufficiently large even number is
in P9 + P9 . In 1950, Selberg further improves the result by showing that:
every sufficiently large even integers it is in P2 + P3 . The best result in this
direction is due to Chen(announcement of results in 1966, proofs in detail in
1973 and 1978) proving that:
Every sufficiently large even integer may be written as 2n = p + m, where p
is a prime and m ∈ P2

2
1.1 The result of this paper
To proving the conjecture, we consider for any even natural number 2n > 4,
with n > 2, the finite sequence of natural numbers Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈{1,2,...,m}
defined by: si (n) = 2n − pi where pi is the ith prime number in the finite
strictly ordered sequence of primes

Pm := p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < ... < pm

where m = π (2n) denotes the number of primes p such that p < 2n. Using
two stages of proofs: the proof by contradiction (or reductio ad absurdum)
including the inductive proof or mathematical induction, we proof that: for
any natural number n > 2, there exists at least one prime number sr (n) =
2n − pr belonging to the sequence Sm (n), which confirms the result 2n =
sr (n) + pr where pr is the r−th prime number of the sequence Pm . It is
noted here that solution of the equation 2n = p + q exists only if p is prime
number and also q = 2n − p it is also a prime number and both p and q
belonging to the finite sequence of prime Pm . We give also an asymptotic
estimation to confirm the obtained result for a large natural number n.

2 Preliminary and theoretical elements es-

sential to the paper
The set of natural numbers N := 1, 2, ..., n, ..., is well-ordered using the usual
ordering relation denoted by ≤, where any subset of N contains a least ele-
ment (this fact is an axiom called the least integer principal). Another way
to see the well-ordering of N, is that any natural number n can be reached
in finite counting steps by ascent (adding 1) or descent (subtracting 1) from
any other natural number m, there isn’t an infinite descent on natural num-
bers. This significant characteristic property of the set of naturals numbers
N, is the key of almost results of properties of natural numbers.The concept
of well-ordering is of fundamental importance in view of the mathematical
induction to proving, in two steps only, the validity of a property H (n) de-
pending on natural number n. For the natural numbers a, b, we say a divides
b, if there is a natural number q such that b = aq. In this case, we also say
that b is divisible by a, or that a is divisor of b, or that a is a factor of b, or

3
that b is a multiple of a. If a is not a divisor of b, then we write a ∤ b. A natu-
ral number p > 1 is called prime, if it is not divisible by any natural number
other than 1 and p. Another way of saying this is that, an natural number
p > 1 is a prime if it cannot be written as the product p = t1 t2 of two smaller
natural numbers t1 , t2 not equal to 1. A natural number b > 1 that is not
a prime is called composite. The number 1 is considered neither prime nor
composite because the factors of 1 are redundant 1 = 1 × 1 = 1 × 1 × ..... × 1.
We shall write

p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < p4 = 7 < ... < pi < ...

the infinite increasing sequence of primes, where pi is the ith prime in this se-
quence. The Euclid’s theorem ensures that there are infinitely many primes,
without knowing their pattern and indication of how to determine the ith
prime number. There is not a regularity in the distribution of these primes on
the chain (N, ≤) in certain situation they are twins, i.e., there exists a positif
integer k such pk+1 = pk + 2, like p2 = 3 and p3 = 5, p5 = 11 and p6 = 13
(it is not known today whether they are an infinitely many twin primes), in
the same time, for any integer k ≥ 2, the sequence of the successive k − 1
naturals numbers k! + 2, k! + 3, k! + 4, ..., k! + k, are all composite, for the
simple reason that, any term k! + t, for 2 ≤ t ≤ k, is divisible by t.
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic shows that any natural number
n > 1 can be written as the product of primes uniquely up the order. For
a natural number n ≥ 2, we denote by π (n) the number of primes p ≤ n,
(π (n) is called also the prime counting function, for example π (4) = 2,
π (5) = 3,...and so on). The fundamental theorem of primes (Tcheybecheff an
empiric estimation around 1850, Hadamard and de Vallée-Poussin theoritical
proof at the end of 19th century) shows that, for any large natural number
n, we have π (n) ∼ lnnn and then pn ∼ n ln n where ln denotes the natural
logarithm of base e = 2, 71.... Finally, the Bertrand’s postulate(1845) and
the Tchebycheff theorem provides that between any natural number n ≥ 2
and its double 2n there exists at least one prime. Equivalently, this may be
stated as π (2n) − π (n) ≥ 1, for n ≥ 2, or also in compact form pn+1 < pn
for n ≥ 1. The following result from [3] is useful for this paper to estimate
some obtained results for Pa large natural number n : The prime1 sums of the
2
first n primes, denoted (n), is asymptotically equivalent to 2 n ln n, i.e.,

4
 n
pi ∼ 12 n2 ln n.
P P
(n) =
i=1
Finally, the proof by contradiction and the inductive proof can be stated
as follows. Proving by so called proof by contradiction or reduction to absur-
dum, the validity of the property H, consists to assume that the hypothesis
H is false, which is then logically equivalent to (non H) is true and derived
from this, by rules of logic, a false statement or contradiction c of the form
c = (nonR) ∧ R, this result confirms that the hypothesis H is not false,
i.e., non(non H) is true, we deduce then that H must be true(the absurdity
or non sense or contradiction follows by the assumption that H is false).
The mathematical induction is just pattern of the direct proof based on the
well-ordering of the set of natural numbers N. Proving the statement H (n)
depending on the natural number n, consists to verify in the first step, the
validity of the statement H for certain element n0 ∈ N, this step is called
the base case of induction. And in the second step, assuming the validity of
the statement H (n) for n ∈ N, (called the inductive hypothesis), then prove
directly the truth of H (n + 1) (this is the inductive case), we can conclude
then, based on the well-ordering of N, the truth of the statement H (n) for
all n ≥ n0 .

3 The construction and analysis of the se-

quence Sm (n)

Prior to construct and analysis the sequence Sm (n), we begin by these simple
lemmas in view of their utilities for the rest of the paper.

Lemma 2 If the odd integer t > 1 is not prime, then it can be factored only
on the form t = t1 t2 where t1 , t2 are proper factors 6= 1, and each factor t1
or t2 , it is also an odd natural number greater or equal to the number 3.

Proof. By definition of prime, if the integer t > 1 is not prime then it is

composite. Let t = t1 t2 be any possible factorization of t with t1 , t2 are the
proper factors 6= 1. If one of these factors (or both) is an even integer then

5
the product t1 t2 = t will be also an even integer, but the number t is odd.
Then each of the factors t1 and t2 must odd and then greater or equal to the
number 3.

Lemma 3 Any natural number b 6= 1 admits a prime divisor. If b is not

prime, then there is a prime p divisor of b such that p2 ≤ b.

Proof. By the definition of prime number, if the natural number b 6= 1

admits only the number b as proper divisor then b is a prime number. If b
is not prime, then it can be factored as b = pq such that: 1 < p < b and
1 < q < b with p is the smallest, under the usual ordering ≤, proper factor of
the number b. Since p is the smallest prope’ey(e’r factor of b then p must be
a prime otherwise, it is not then the least factor of b. As p is the least factor
of b then p ≤ q. Multiplying both sides by p, we obtain: pp = p2 ≤ pq = b.

Let m ≥ 1 be natural number, we denote by Im = {1, 2, ..., m} the finite

m-sequence of consecutive naturals numbers from 1 to m. In this paper the
word m-sequence designate any sequence of m natural numbers.

Lemma 4 Let m ≥ 1 be a natural number. And let be two an increasing m-

sequences a = (a1 < a2 ... < am ), b = (b1 < b2 < ... < bm ) of natural numbers
with for each i ∈ Im there exists j ∈ Im such that ai = bj , then we have for
m
P m
P
each i ∈ Im : ai = bi and consequently ai = bi .
i=1 i=1

Proof. By induction on i ∈ Im . For i = 1, if a1 < b1 then a1 < b1 <

b2 ... < bm ,..and we have a1 ∈/ b = (bi )i∈Im contradiction. With the same
reason, if b1 < a1 we obtain b1 ∈ / a = (bi )i∈Im and then it necessary that
a1 = b1 . Suppose that we have for some i with m > i > 2, a1 = b1 ,
a2 = b2 ,...,ai = bi . For i + 1, if ai+1 < bi+1 , then there is not any bj for
j ≥ i + 1 such that ai+1 = bj and there is not any bj for j ≤ i because
ai+1 > ai = bi > ai−1 = bi−1 > ... > a1 = b1 , contradiction. The same
argument holds if bi+1 < ai+1 , then it is necessary that we have ai+1 = bi+1 .
m
P Pm
And consequently for each i ∈ Im : ai = bi and then ai = bi .
i=1 i=1
Note that the condition ”ai = bj ” for some i, j ∈ Im ”, in the lemma [4] ,
is necessary and suffisante condition. It is necessary because we can exhibit
two increasing m−sequences a = (a1 < a2 ... < am ), b = (b1 < b2 < ... < bm )

6
 m
P m
P
with ai = bi but ai 6= bi for all i ∈ Im , for example, a = (2 < 10) and
i=1 i=1
b = (4 < 8).
Let n ≥ 2 be a natural number, we consider the finite strictly increasing
sequence of prime numbers

p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < ... < pi ... < pm

where m = π (2n) denotes the number of primes p < 2n. Let Pm = (pi )i∈Im
denotes this finite successive primes less strictly than 2n. The Tschebycheff’s
theorem asserts that at least the prime pm is between n and its double 2n.
For any natural number n > 2, we consider the finite sequence Sm (n) =
(si (n))i∈Im of natural numbers defined by: si (n) = 2n − pi where pi is the
ith prime of Pm . Then we have:
s1 (n) = 2n − 2,
s2 (n) = 2n − 3,
s3 (n) = 2n − 5,
.
.
.
si (n) = 2n − pi ,
.
.
.
sm (n) = 2n − pm .

Example 5 For n = 10, the finite sequence of primes less than 20 is then
p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < p4 = 7 < p5 = 11 < p6 = 13 <
p7 = 17 < p8 = 19. Consequently π (20) = 8 and then the sequence
S8 (n) = S8 (10) = (si (10))i∈{1,2,...,8} is:

s1 (10) = 20 − 2 = 18, s2 (10) = 20 − 3 = 17, s3 (10) = 20 − 5 = 15,

s4 (10) = 20 − 7 = 13, s5 (10) = 20 − 11 = 9, s6 (10) = 20 − 13 = 7,

s7 (10) = 20 − 17 = 3, s8 (10) = 20 − 19 = 1.

7
Lemma 6 For the natural number n > 2 with m = π (2n), the finite se-
quence of natural numbers Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈Im defined by si (n) = 2n − pi ,
with 1 ≤ i ≤ m, is strictly decreasing from s1 (n) = 2n − 2 = Max (Sm (n))
to sm (n) = 2n − pm = min (Sm (n)) ≥ 1, and each element si (n) of this
sequence is an odd natural number except the first term s1 (n) = 2n − 2 that
is evidently an even number. The last term sm (n) is equal to 1 only in the
case when pm = 2n − 1.
Proof. Let n > 2 be a natural number with m = π (2n). Since the finite
sequence of primes p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < ... < pi < ...pm is strictly in-
creasing, and each term si (n) is defined by 2n − pi then the sequence Sm (n)
is strictly decreasing from s1 (n) to sm (n). In fact, we have pi+1 > pi for
1 ≤ i ≤ m − 1 and then si (n) = 2n − pi > si+1 (n) = 2n − pi+1 , this shows
that we have:

s1 (n) = 2n−p1 = 2n−2 > s2 (n) = 2n−p2 = 2n−3 > s3 (n) = 2n−p3 = 2n−
5 > ...si (n) = 2n − pi > si+1 (n) = 2n − pi+1 > ..... > sm (n) = 2n − pm ≥ 1.
Since for all i, with 2 ≤ i ≤ m, the prime pi is odd then also the term
si (n) = 2n−pi is odd. The first term s1 (n) = 2n−2 is the unique even num-
ber in the sequence Sm (n). The last term sm (n) = 2n − pm = min (Sm (n))
can be equal to the number 1 if and only if pm = 2n−1. In fact, if pm = 2n−1
then sm (n) = 2n − pm = 2n − (2n − 1) = 1. In the reverse case, we have
∀p ∈ Pm , p < 2n and then 2n − p > 0 ⇐⇒ 2n − p ≥ 1 and we have 2n − p = 1
only in the case when p = 2n − 1 = pm . In example 5, we have this situation,
as p8 = 19 then s8 (10) = 20 − 19 = 1.

4 Existence of prime in the sequence Sm (n) =

(si (n))i∈Im , for any natural number n > 2
with m = π (2n)

Theorem 7 For any natural number n > 2 with m = π (2n), the finite
sequence of natural numbers Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈Im defined by si (n) = 2n − pi ,
with 1 ≤ i ≤ m, contains at least one prime sr ∈ Pm ∩ Sm (n).
Proof. For any natural number n > 2, let Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈Im be the finite
sequence of natural numbers as defined in the section 3 above. The proof

8
is by contradiction, and so begin by assuming that the following hypothesis
H (n) is true for some natural number n > 2.

The hypothesis H (n):

”there exists a natural number n > 2, such that: each term si (n) ∈
Sm (n), for any i ∈ Im , it is not a prime number”.

This is equivalent to:

”there exists a natural number n > 2, such that: each term si (n) ∈ Sm (n),
for any i ∈ Im , it is a composite number or equal to the natural number 1”.

Symbolicaly the hypothsis H (n) can be written:

”∃ (n > 2) ∈ N, ∀ i ∈ {1, 2, 3, ...m}: the term si (n) is not a prime
number”
But, the unique term si (n) of Sm (n), which can be equal to the number 1
is, the last term sm (n) = 2n − pm in the case when pm = 2n − 1 (see the
lemma 6). The last term sm (n) = 2n−pm is the unique term of the sequence
Sm (n), which it is neither prime nor a composite number in the case when
pm = 2n − 1, i.e., in the case when sm (n) = 1.

To contradict or denying the hypothesis H (n) for all n > 2, (in symbolic
terms this contradiction is written: ∀ (n > 2)∈ N, ∃i ∈ {1, 2, 3, ...m} such

that si (n) is a prime number), we compute the sum of the terms of the
sequence Sm (n) in two different ways: In the first way, we compute the
m
P
sum si (n) without any hypothesis, which represents the sum of the real
i=1
m
P
terms. In the second way, we compute the sum si (n), where each term
i=1
si (n) 6= 1 of Sm (n) it is supposed to be a composite natural number, under
the hypothesis H (n), for all n > 2.
In the first way:
m
X m
X
Sumrel (n) = si (n) = (2n − pi )
i=1 i=1

Where, Sumrel (n) represents the sum of the terms si (n) without the hy-
pothesis H (n), which it is the sum of real terms for n > 2.

9
In the second way:
m
X
Sumhyp (n) = si (n)
i=1

Where, Sumhyp (n) represents the sum of the terms under the hypothesis
H (n), for n > 2, with each term si (n) > 1 it is to be assumed a composite
number for all i ∈ Im or i ∈ Im−1 in the case when sm (n) = 2n − pm = 1.
In the first way, we have:
Pm m
P
Sumrel (n) = si (n) = (2n − pi ) =
i=1 i=1
= (2n − 2) + (2n − 3) + ... + (2n − pi ) + ... + (2n − pm )
= (2n + 2n + ... + 2n) − (2 + 3 + ... + pi + ... + pm )
Pm m
P m
P
= 2n − pi = 2nm − pi .
i=1 i=1 i=1
This positive integer value represents, for n > 2, the real sum of all the terms
of the sequence Sm (n) with m = π (2n). Evidently m and then Sumrel (n)
are depending on the natural number n > 2, when n describes N. In the
second way, from the lemma 6, all the terms of sequence Sm (n) are odd
numbers except the first s1 (n) = (2n − 2). Since, under the hypothesis
H (n), each term si (n) 6= 1 it is supposed to be a composite number, we
consider then the possible factorization of each term si (n) as the following
form:
′
si (n) = pi (n) qi (n)
(under H(n))
′
such that pi (n) is the least prime number dividing si (n), the existence of
this prime factor it is assured by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic or it
suffices to see the lemma 3, and qi (n) is the other propre factor. According to
′
the lemmas 2 and 6, the factors pi (n), qi (n) are odd ≥ 3, for all i ∈ {2, ..., m}
in the case when pm 6= 2n − 1, and for all i ∈ {2, ..., m − 1} in the case when
pm = 2n−1 (because in this case, we have sm = 2n−pm = 2n−(2n − 1) = 1).
The term s1 (n) = 2n − 2 = 2(n − 1) is the only natural even number of the
sequence Sm (n), which it is evidently a composite number. Since si (n) =
′ ′
2n − pi > 2n − pi+1 = si+1 (n), we have also pi (n) qi (n) > pi+1 (n) qi+1 (n)
for all i ∈ {2, ..., m − 1} if the above factorisation can be exists.
m
P
Two cases are to consider for Sumhyp (n) = si (n),
i=1

10
depending on whether pm 6= 2n − 1 (in this case sm (n) = 2n − pm ≥ 3 it is
also a composite number) or, pm = 2n − 1 (in this case sm (n) = 2n − pm = 1
it is neither prime nor a composite number).

1rt case : if pm 6= 2n − 1, then each term si (n) is to be a composite number,

in view of H (n), and we have:
m m m
P P P ′
Sumhyp (n) = si (n) = s1 (n) + si (n) = (2n − 2) + pi (n) qi (n).
i=1 i=2 i=2
2nd case : if pm = 2n − 1, in this case we have
sm (n) = 2n − pm = 2n − (2n − 1) = 1, thus we have:
m
P m−1
P
Sumhyp (n) = si (n) = s1 (n) + si (n) + sm (n) =
i=1 i=2
m−1
P ′
(2n − 2) + pi (n) qi (n) + 1.
i=2
Since any term si (n) is between the numbers 1 and 2n − 2, we have then:
n ′ ′ ′
o
Tprim (n) = p2 (n) , p3 (n) , ...pm (n) ⊆ Pm

In the same case, for the proper factors qi (n), we must have:

Tf act (n) = {q2 (n) , q3 (n) ..., qm (n)}

with 3 ≤ qi (n) < 2n − 2, ∀i ∈ {2, 3, ..., m}(according to the hyp. H (n) and
lemmas 2 and 6).
Our objective is to prove that, under the hypothesis H (n), we will have for
any natural number n > 2 :

Sumhyp (n) > Sumrel (n)

In the cases 1 and 2 cited above.
The inequality Sumhyp (n) > Sumrel (n) can be written Symbolicaly in the
cases 1 and 2 as the following forms:

1rt case : m m
X ′
X
(2n − 2) + pi (n) qi (n) > 2nm − pi
i=2 i=1

2nd case :

11
 m−1
X m
X
′
(2n − 2) + pi (n) qi (n) + 1 > 2nm − pi
i=2 i=1

Note that, the first even term s1 (n) = 2n − p1 = 2n − 2 = 2 (n − 1) is

written separately in the sum of Sumhyp (n), because the objective of this
method is to show that there is at least one odd prime number in the se-
quence Sm (n) for all m = π (2n) with n > 2.

The least increasing (m − 1)-sequence T3m = (ti )i∈Im of composite

odd natural numbers.

To show that the inequalties in the cases 1 and 2 are always satisfied for
any natural variable n > 2, we exhibit an explicite sequence of m natural
numbers T3m = (ti )i∈{1,2,3,...m} defined by: t1 = 2n − 2 and each term ti =
ti1 × ti2 is a composite odd natural number for 2 ≤ i ≤ m with ti1 , ti2 are
greater or equal to the number 3, and this sequence must possess the property
that is the least increasing sequence of m odd composite natural numbers and
having the smallest sum compared with any other finite sequence Sm (n) =
(si (n))i∈{1,2,3,...m} of m terms with si (n) = p′i (n) qi (n) as defined above. In
others words, the finite sequence T3m = (ti )i∈{1,2,3,...m} satisfied the hypothesis
H (n) and the condition:
m m
′
pi (n) qi (n) in the 1rt case,
P P
(2n − 2) + ti ≤ (2n − 2) +
i=2 i=2
m−1 m−1
′
pi (n) qi (n) + 1 in the 2nd case
P P
or (2n − 2) + ti + 1 ≤ (2n − 2) +
i=2 i=2
for any other sequence Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈Im as defined above and satisfied
the hypothesis H (n).
The sequence T3m = (ti )i∈Im can be defined by:
t1 = 2n − 2,

ti = ti1 × ti2 = 3 × (2 (i − 1) + 1) with ti1 = 3 and ti2 = 2 (i − 1) + 1 for any

i ∈ {2, ..., m}.

The last term tm is equal to (3 × 2 (m − 1) + 1) or 1 depending on respec-

tively to the cases 1rt case or 2nd case.

12
 ′
In fact, since for any i ∈ {2, ..., m} we have pi (n) ∈ {p2 , p3 , ..., pm } it suffices
to take:

ti1 = 3 = min {p2 = 3, p3 = 5, ..., pm },

and to have ti = 3 × ti2 < 3 × t(i+1)2 = ti+1 ⇔ ti2 < t(i+1)2 , for all 2 ≤ i ≤
m − 1, with ti2 , t(i+1)2

are the smallest odd natural numbers greater or equal to the number 3, it
suffices to take for the second’s terms ti2 the first (m − 1) consecutive odd
natural numbers :

t22 = 3 < t32 = 5 < t42 = 7 < t52 = 9 < .... < tm2 = (2 (m − 1) + 1),

i.e., the sequence T3m is defined by :

t1 = 2n − 2,
and for m ≥ i ≥ 2 we have :
t2 = 3×3 < t3 = 3×5 < t4 = 3×7 < t5 = 3×9.... < tm = 3×(2 (m − 1) + 1).
note that, for the simplicity only, we have written the sequence T3m in in-
creasing ordre from i ≥ 2.
For example for n = 3 we have m = π (6) = |{p1 , p2 , p3 }| = 3 and then the
sequence T33 = (ti )i∈I3 is (6 − 2 = 4, 3 × 3, 3 × 5).
The sequence T3m as defined above satisfied the hypothesis H (n) in the sens
that any term of sequence is a composite odd natural number greater or
equal to the number 3, except the first, that is a composite even number. To
m
P
confirm that we have: Sumhyp (n) ≥ ti for any n ≥ 3.
i=1
We recall in first, that we have:

si (n) = 2n − pi > 2n − pi+1 = si+1 (n),

′ ′
and then: si (n) = pi (n) qi (n) > pi+1 (n) qi+1 (n) = si+1 (n)
′
for all i ∈ {2, ..., m − 1} under the hypothesis H (n) with pi (n) and qi (n)
are odd natural numbers ≥ 3.
We have:
m m
P ′ P
Sumhyp (n) = (2n − 2) + pi (n) qi (n) ≥ (2n − 2) + 3 × qi (n) ≥
i=2 i=2

13
 m
P m
P
(2n − 2) + 3 × (2 (i − 1) + 1) = ti .
i=2 i=1
′
In fact, since for all 2 ≤ i ≤ m, pi (n) ∈ {p2 , p3 , ..., pm },
′
then we have: pi (n) ≥ ti1 = 3 = min {p2 = 3, p3 = 5, ..., pm }

and since 3 × qi (n) > 3 × qi+1 (n) for all i ∈ {2, 3, ...m − 1},

then qi (n) > qi+1 (n) ≥ 3 for all i ∈ {2, 3, ...m − 1}, i.e.,

q2 (n) > q3 (n) ... > qm−1 (n) > qm (n) ≥ 3

with each qi (n) ≥ 3, is an odd term, and consequently

m
P m
P
3 × qi (n) ≥ 3 × ti2 because ti2 belongs to the first (m − 1) consecutive
i=2 i=2
odd natural numbers: 3 < 5 < 7 < 9 < 11.... < (2 (m − 1) + 1),
which are the smallest, on the sum of terms, among any others (m − 1)
increasing sequence of odd natural numbers greater or equal to the number
3.
Thus, the sequence T3m possess the property that is the smallest, in sum
of terms, among any other increasing m-sequence Tm = (ti )i∈{1,2,3,...m} , of
composite odd natural numbers greater or equal to the number 3, except the
first term is even defined by t1 = 2n − 2 and not concerned with the growth
or the increasing with the other terms, i.e, the sequence Tm is increasing
sequence for i belonging to (m − 1) ≥ i ≥ 2.
Note that also, there is an infinite chaine of increasing (m − 1) sequences
of odd composite natural numbers Tpm = (p × tj2 )j∈{2,...,m} with p is an odd
prime number and tj2 is taken from the first (m − 1) consecutive odd nat-
ural numbers ≥ 3, i.e., tj2 ∈ {3, 5, 7, 9, 11, ...., (2 (m − 1) + 1)}. We have for
example for p3 = 5 : T5m = {5 × 3 < 5 × 5 < .... < 5 × (2 (m − 1) + 1)} with
P m
P
T5m = 5 ti2 , and for p4 = 7 :
i=2
P m
P
T7m = {7 × 3 < 7 × 5 < ... < 7 × (2 (m − 1) + 1)} with T7m = 7 ti2 and
i=2
so
P on forever.
P EvidentlyP we have T3m < T5m < T7m < ..., in the sens that
T3m < T5m < T7m .
Note that, if we consider the set of increasing (m − 1) sequences of the form

14
(ktj2 )j∈{2,...,m} with k ∈ N : k × 3 < k × 5 < ... < k × (2 (m − 1) + 1),
the smallest is then T1m = {3 < 5 < .... < (2 (m − 1) + 1)}, and the second
is T2m = {2 × 3 < 2 × 5 < .... < 2 × (2 (m − 1) + 1)}, in this case we have:
T1m < T2m < T3m < T4m < T5m < T6m < T7m < ....
m
ti (n) in the cases 1rt case and 2nd case.
P
We compute in first the sum
i=1
In case 1rt case, i.e., in the case when tm 6= 1,
we have:
m m
m 
P P P
ti = t1 + ti = (2n − 2) + 3 × (2 (i − 1) + 1) =
i=1 i=2 i=2

(2n − 2) + 3 (3 + 5 + ... + (2(m − 1) + 1)) =

(2n − 2) + 3 (2(m−1)+4)(m−1)
2
= (2n − 2) + 3 (m + 1) (m − 1).


And in the second case 2nd case , i.e, in the case when tm = 1 , we have:
m m−1
 m−1 
P P P
ti (n) = t1 (n) + ti + tm = (2n − 2) + 3 (2 (i − 1) + 1) + 1 =
i=1 i=2 i=2

(2n − 2) + 3 (3 + 5 + ... + (2(m − 2) + 1)) + 1 =

 
(2n − 2) + 3 (2(m−2)+4)(m−2)
2
+1=

(2n − 2) + 3 (m) (m − 2) + 1.

Our objective, is to show that with this least finite sequence T3m = (ti )i∈Im ,
m
P m
P
we will have Sumrel (n) = 2nm − pi < ti (n), for any natural number
i=1 i=1
n ≥ 3. And since T3m is the least sequence satisfying the hypothesis H (n),
we confirm that the factorisation of each term of Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈Im as
′ ′
si (n) = pi (n) qi (n), with the factors pi (n), qi (n) are odd natural
(under H(n))
numbers ≥ 3 for all i ∈ {2, ..., m} under H (n),can not exists and then the
refutation of H (n) for all n ≥ 3.
m
P
Since the quantities Sumrel (n) and ti are a natural numbers depending
i=1
on the natural variable n, we can then proceed by induction for n ≥ 3 to

15
 m
P
verify if Sumrel (n) < ti (n).
i=1

Verification for the integer n = 3.

On the one hand, we have 2n = 6 and then:
3
P
m = π (2n) = π (6) = |{p1 , p2 , p3 }| = |{2, 3, 5}| = 3 with pi = 2 + 3 + 5 =
i=1
10 and consequently, Sumrel (3) = 2nm − 10 = 2 × 3 × 3 − 10 = 8.
On the other hand, since p3 = 5 = 2n − 1 = 2 × 3 − 1, then the 2nd case which
m
P
it will be used to compute ti (n) = (2n − 2) + 3 (m) (m − 2) + 1. We have:
i=1
3
P
ti (n) = (2 × 3 − 2) + 3 (3) (3 − 2) + 1 = 4 + 9 + 1 = 14,
i=1
3
P
Consequently, Sumrel (3) = 8 < 14 = ti (3), and therefore the base case
i=1
for the induction is the natural number 3.
Verification again for the integer n = 4.
On the one hand, we have 2n = 8 and then:
4
P
m = π (2n) = π (8) = |{p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 }| = |{2, 3, 5, 7}| = 4 with pi =
i=2
2 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 17 and consequently,
Sumrel (4) = 2nm − 17 = 2 × 4 × 4 − 17 = 15.
On the other hand, since p4 = 2 × n − 1 = 2 × 4 − 1 = 7, then the 2nd case
P4
which will be used to compute ti (n) = (2n − 2) + 3 (m) (m − 2) + 1 =
i=1
(2 × 4 − 2) + 3 × (4) × (4 − 2) + 1 = 6 + 24 + 1 = 31. We have also
4
P
Sumrel (4) = 15 < ti (n) = 31.
i=1
π(2n+2)
P
2. verification if Sumrel (n + 1) < ti (n + 1) at the step n + 1,
i=1
π(2n)
P
given that we have Sumrel (n) < ti (n) satisfied at the step n.
i=1
Recall that we have two cases to consider at the step n + 1.
- If the prime pm+1 6= 2n + 1, in this case pm+1 > 2n + 2 and consequently
we have π (2n) = π (2n + 2) = m, this shows that we are in the 1er case with
sm (n + 1) = 2 (n + 1) − pm ≥ 3 because pm < 2n, and consequently the
sequence S at the step n + 1 will have also m terms,
- If the prime pm+1 = 2n + 1, in this case π (2n + 2) = m + 1, this shows that

16
there is m + 1 terms with sm+1 (n + 1) = 1. We start with the second case
for it’s simplicity: At to the step n + 1, in the 2er case,
On the one hand we have:
m+1
P m
P
Sumrel (n + 1) = si (n + 1) = (2 (n + 1) − pi ) + sm+1 (n + 1) =
i=1 i=1
m
P m
P
((2n − pi ) + 2) + 1 = (2n − pi ) + 2m + 1 = Sumrel (n) + 2m + 1.
i=1 i=1
On the other hand,
m+1
P
ti (n + 1) = (2 (n + 1) − 2) + 3 (m + 1) ((m + 1) − 2) + 1 =
i=1

(2n − 2) + 2 + 3 (m + 1) ((m − 2) + 1) + 1 =

(2n − 2) + 3(m (m − 2) + m + m − 2 + 1) + 1 =

((2n − 2) + 3m (m − 2) + 1) + 3 (2m − 1) =
m
P
ti (n) + 6m − 3
i=1
m
P
Since we have Sumrel (n) < ti (n) at the step n, and we have 2m + 1 <
i=1
6m − 3 for m ≥ 2 then
m+1
P
Sumrel (n + 1) = Sumrel (n) + 2m + 1 < ti (n + 1) =
i=1
m 
P
ti (n) + (6m − 3)
i=1

We conclud that: the condition is satisfied at the step n + 1.

For the first case 1er case, if the prime pm+1 6= 2n + 1, then pm+1 > 2n + 2,
and consequently, π (2n) = π (2n + 2) = m.
On the one hand we m
have: m
P P
Sumrel (n + 1) = (2 (n + 1) − pi ) = ((2n − pi ) + 2)
i=1 i=1
m
P
= (2n − pi ) + 2m = Sumrel (n) + 2m.
i=1
On the other hand,

17
m
P m
P
ti (n + 1) = ti (n + 1) = (2 (n + 1) − 2) + 3 (m + 1) (m − 1) =
i=1 i=1

(2n + 2 − 2) + 3 (m + 1) (m − 1) = ((2n − 2) + 3 (m + 1) (m − 1)) + 2 =

m
P
2+ ti (n)
i=1
m
P
Since we have sumrel (n) < ti (n) at the step n, and
i=1
Sumrel (n + 1) = Sumrel (n) + 2m, we can not decide for the moment that
we have m
P
Sumrel (n + 1) < 2 + ti (n). Remark that we have added to sumrel (n)
i=1
the number 2 to each terme si (n), from the step n to the step n + 1, and
added only the number 2 to the first term t1 (n + 1) = t1 (n) + 2 in sum
Pm
ti (n).
i=1
m
P
Evidently, we have Sumrel (n + 1) < 2m + ti (n).
i=1
We have three cases to study:
m
P m
P
a). Sumrel (n + 1) < ti (n + 1), or b). Sumrel (n + 1) = ti (n + 1) or
i=1 i=1
m
P
c). Sumrel (n + 1) > ti (n + 1).
i=1
If the case (a) is true we have done. For the case (b), Suppose that we have
m
P
Sumrel (n + 1) = ti (n + 1) ⇐⇒
i=1
m
P m
P
(2 (n + 1) − pi ) = ti (n + 1) =
i=1 i=1
m
P
(2(n + 1) − 2) + 3 × (2 (i − 1) + 1) ⇐⇒
i=2
m
P Pm
(2 (n + 1) − pi ) = 3 × (2 (i − 1) + 1).
i=2 i=2
But we have:

2 (n + 1) − p2 > 2 (n + 1) − p3 > .... > 2 (n + 1) − pm ,

and

3 × (2 (m − 1) + 1) > 3 × (2 (m − 2) + 1) > .... > 3 × 5 > 3 × 3,

18
with the condition that for each i ∈ {2, 3, ...m} there exists j ∈ {2, 3, ...m}
such that:
2 (n + 1) − pi = 3 × (2 (j − 1) + 1)
(note that this condition is prescribed by the hypothesis H (n)).
Using the lemma [4], we must have the i-th element of the first sequence is
equal to the i-th element of second sequence for any i ∈ {2, ..., m}, then:

2 (n + 1) − pm = 3 × 3,
2 (n + 1) − pm−1 = 3 × 5,
.
.
.
2 (n + 1) − 5 = 3 × (2 (m − 2) + 1),
2 (n + 1) − 3 = 3 × (2 (m − 1) + 1).

Then 3 divise 2 (n + 1) − pi for i ∈ {2, 3, ..., m}. Taking, for example, the
last two equations we have:
2 (n + 1) − 5 = 3 × k, with k = (2 (m − 2) + 1), =⇒ 2 (n + 1) = 3 × k + 5.
2 (n + 1) − 3 = 3 × k ′ , with k ′ = (2 (m − 1) + 1),=⇒ 2 (n + 1) = 3 × k ′ + 3.
Then 3 × k + 5 = 3 × k ′ + 3 =⇒ 3 (k − k ′ ) = −2, which is impossible on N.
Consequently, the second case (b) is impossible.
For the case (c):
Pm P
Since Sumrel (n + 1) > ti (n + 1) = (2 (n + 1) − 2) + T3m ,
i=1
we compare
P P SumrelP(n + 1) with theP second element of the hierarchy
T3m < T5m < T7m , i.e., with T5m .
On the one hand, Sumrel (n + 1) = Sumrel (n) + 2m,
on the other hand, P
(2 (n + 1) − 2) + T5m = (2 (n + 1) − 2) + 5 (m + 1) (m − 1) =
(2n − 2) + 2 + (3 + 2) (m + 1) (m − 1) =
(2n − 2) + 3 (m + 1) (m − 1) + 2 (m + 1) (m − 1) + 2 =
Pm
ti (n) + 2 (m + 1) (m − 1) + 2.
i=1
m
P
Since Sumrel (n) < ti (n) and 2m < 2 (m + 1) (m − 1) + 2,
i=1 P
then Sumrel (n + 1) < (2 (n + 1) − 2) + T5m .
But there is not any sequence Tpm between T3m and T5m such that:

19
 P
(2 (n + 1) − 2) + Tpm = Sumrel (n + 1). Since we have Sumrel (n + 1) 6=
m
P
ti (n + 1) in the case (b), consequently, we must have:
i=1
m
P
Sumrel (n + 1) < ti (n + 1).
i=1 P
But also, we can not have Sumrel (n + 1) is equal to (2 (n + 1) − 2)+ T2m =
Pm
(2 (n + 1) − 2)+2 ti2 , since if it is, using the same argument as in the proof
i=2
of the case (b) above and lemma[4], we must have:
2 (n + 1) − pm = 2 × 3,
2 (n + 1) − pm−1 = 2 × 5,
.
.
.
2 (n + 1) − 5 = 2 × (2 (m − 2) + 1),
2 (n + 1) − 3 = 2 × (2 (m − 1) + 1).
The left side of any above equation is an odd natural number and it’s right
side is an even number and then the impossibility. Taking for example the
last equation we have :
2 (n + 1) − 3 = 2 × (2 (m − 1) + 1) ⇐⇒ 2n + 2 − 3 = 4m − 4 + 2 ⇐⇒ 2n =
4m − 1 ⇐⇒ 2m = n + 12 which is impossible on N.
Then the only case which remain is to must have :
Pm
Sumrel (n + 1) = (2 (n + 1) − pi ) =
i=1
m
P P
(2 (n + 1) − 2) + (2 (n + 1) − pi ) < (2 (n + 1) − 2) + T2m ⇐⇒
i=2
m
P P m
P m
P
(2 (n + 1) − pi ) < T2m = 2×ti2 = 2×(2 (i − 1)+1) = 2 (m + 1) (m − 1).
i=2 i=2 i=2
Then we have:
m
X
(2 (n + 1) − pi ) < 2 (m + 1) (m − 1)
i=2

m
P
Consequently, in the case when pm+1 6= 2n + 1, we have (2 (n + 1) − pi )
i=2
can not exceed twice the sum of the first (m − 1) consecutive odd numbers
m
P
i.e., (2 (n + 1) − pi ) < 2 (m + 1) (m − 1).
i=2

20
In conclusion, in any cases 1rt case and 2nd case we have : Sumrel (n) <
π(2n)
P
ti (n). Since we have isolated the first term s1 (n) and the last term
i=1
sm (n) from our comparaison, the above result confirms that the factorisation
′
of each term of Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈Im as si (n) = pi (n) qi (n), with
(under H(n))
′
pi (n), qi (n) are greater or equal to the number 3 under H (n) cannot exists
in the set of natural numbers N, and then the refutation of the hypothesis
H (n) for any n ≥ 3. Consequently, for each n ≥ 3, there exists at least one
′
r ∈ {2, 3, ..., m} such that the odd term sr (n) = pr (n) qr (n) have inevitably
′
the factor qr (n) < 3 (because the least prime factor pr (n) exists and it is
greater or equal to the number 3 since sr (n) is an odd term), and since also
the factor qr (n) can not be even with the same reason, then necessarily the
factor qr (n) must be equal to the natural number 1. Then, we must have:
′ ′
sr (n) = pr (n) × 1 = pr (n) ∈ {p2 = 3, p3 = 5, ..., pm } ⊂ Pm . Thus, we obtain
for each n > 2, an odd prime number sr (n) claimed by the theorem.
Example 8 For n = 5, the finite sequence of primes less than 10 is p1 =
2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < p4 = 7, consequently m = π (10) = 4. The sequence
S4 (5) = (si (5))i∈{1,2,...,4} is:
s1 (5) = 10 − 2 = 8, s2 (5) = 10 − 3 = 7, s3 (5) = 10 − 5 = 5 and s4 (5) = 10 −
P4
7 = 3. We have si (5) = 7 + 5 + 3 = 15 and we have 2 (m + 1) (m − 1) =
i=2
2 (4 + 1) (5 − 1) = 5 × 3 = 30.
Example 9 For n = 14, the finite sequence of primes less than 28 is: p1 =
2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < p4 = 7 < p5 = 11 < p6 = 13 < p7 = 17 < p8 = 19 and
, p9 = 23, consequently
m = π (28) = 9. The sequence S9 (14) = (si (14))i∈{1,2,...,9} is:
s1 (14) = 28 − 2 = 26, s2 (14) = 28 − 3 = 25, s3 (14) = 28 − 5 = 23,
s4 (14) = 28 − 7 = 21, s5 (14) = 28 − 11 = 17,
s6 (14) = 28 − 13 = 15, s7 (14) = 28 − 17 = 11, s8 (14) = 28 − 19 = 9, and
s9 (14) = 28 − 23 = 5.
P9
si (14) = 25 + 23 + 21 + 17 + 15 + 11 + 9 + 5 = 126. On the other hand
i=2
we have: 2 (m + 1) (m − 1) = 2 × 10 × 8 = 160.
Theorem 10 Every even integer 2n ≥ 4, with n ≥ 2, is the sum of two
primes.

21
Proof. If n = 2 then 4 = 2 + 2. If the natural number n > 2, we consider
the finite sequence of primes Pm := (p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 < .... < pm ) with m =
π (2n) and let Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈Im be the finite sequence of natural numbers
defined by si (n) = 2n − pi , where pi is ith prime of Pm . From the theorem 7
there exists at least one prime number sr (n) ∈ Sm (n). As we have sr (n) =
2n − pr with pr is the r-th prime number of sequence Pm . Therefore we have
s = sr (n) = 2n − pr and consequently 2n = pr + s. It follows that the
Goldbach’s conjecture is effectively a theorem of number theory.
As consequence of this results, given an even natural number 2n ≥ 4 with
n ≥ 2, to find the pair of primes numbers (p, s) such that 2n = p+s, it suffices
that the algorithm run through the finite sequence Sm (n) = (si (n))i∈Im ,
which contains, at least one, solution claimed.

Corollary 11 Let n ≥ 2 be a natural number and let be: p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 <

p3 = 5 < ... < pi ... < pm the finite sequence primes such that m = π (2n).
We have: gcd (2n − p1 , 2n − p2 , ..., 2n − pm ) = 1.

Proof. From the lemma 6, we have 2n − pm = 1 or 2n − pm ≥ 3. If

2n − pm = 1, evidently we have gcd (2n − p1 , 2n − p2 , ..., 2n − pm ) = 1. If
m
P m
P
2n−pm ≥ 3, we have from the theorem [7], (2n − pi ) < 2 ti2 , this result
i=2 i=2
shows that there is not any commun divisor of (2n − p1 , 2n − p2 , ..., 2n − pm )
great or equal to the number 2 and consequently:
gcd (2n − p1 , 2n − p2 , ..., 2n − pm ) = 1.

Asymptotic estimation.
Recall that the notation f (x) ∼ h (x) for
 a positive
 real valued continuous
f (x)
functions f (x), h (x), means that limx→∞ h(x) = 1, and in this case f (x),
h (x) are said to be asymptotically equal as x tends to infinity.
To confirm for a large n the result obtained in the theorem [7], we use only
n
the following asymptotic results: π (n) ∼ lnnn and pi ∼ 12 n2 ln n.
P P
(n) =
i=1
The result obtained in the theorem [7], state that we have:
m
P
(2n − pi ) < 2 (m + 1) (m − 1) ⇐⇒
i=2
m
P
2n (m − 1) − pi < 2 (m + 1) (m − 1) ⇐⇒
i=2
m
P
2n (m − 1) < 2 (m + 1) (m − 1) + pi .
i=2

22
 2
For a large number n ∈ N, 2n (m − 1) ∼ (2n) ln2n2n = ln4n2n = h (n),


m
2 2
pi ∼ 2 ln2n2n + 21 n2 ln n = (ln8n2n)2 + 12 n2 ln n =
P
and 2 (m + 1) (m − 1) +
i=2
f (n). We
 have: 1 2

 8n2 ln 2n   
f (n) 8n2 1 2 ln 2n n ln n ln 2n 2 ln 2n2
h(n)
= (ln 2n) 2 + 2
n ln n × 4n2
= 4n2 (ln 2n) 2 + 2
4n2
= ln 2n
+ 8
.
 
(n)
We have: limn→∞ fh(n) = ∞ and this result confirm that we have also
h (n) ≺ f (n) for a large n ∈ N.

Acknowledgement 12 This work was supported by the LMPA, University

of M’sila, Algeria.

References
[1] A. Baille, J.l. Boursin, C. Pair. Mathématiques,1972 Paris, Bordas.

[2] Carol Critchlow and David Eck. Foundations of computation, 2end ed.,
creative commons.org (2006).

[3] Eric Bach, Jeffry Shallit. Algorithmic number theory, vol I: Efficient al-
gorithms, the M.I.T press (1996) Massachusetts institut of technology.

[4] Karel Hrbacek, Thomas Jech. Introduction to set theory, 3rd ed. Marcel
Dekker, New York (1999).

[5] Ganesh Gopalakrishnan, Computation engineering: Applied automata

theory and logic, Springer (2006).

[6] Rudolf Lidl, Günter Pilz. Applied abstract algebra second edition,
Springer1998.

[7] Paulo Ribenboim. The little Book of Big Primes,1991,Springer.

[8] Lang, Serge. Undergraduate algebra, Second edition, 1990 Springer.

[9] John Stillwell. Numbers and geometry, Springer 1997.

23