The Twin Primes Conjecture

[Pro]

The Twin Primes Conjecture.

[Pro]

It's pretty much impossible for me to rewrite the protheory.com topics in full as I'd end up just making it too complicated so for now please just take a look at this original archive from my website and then you can ask me any questions below here

The Twin Primes Conjecture



Introduction

We need to prove whether a singular statement is either true or false.



Conjecture

This conjecture states that there are infinitely many "twin pairs" of prime numbers in existence.



Prime

Prime numbers can only be evenly divided by themselves and 1.

2, 3, 5, 7...



Twin

A twin pair means that there are some primes that are only 2 apart.

For example, 11 and 13 or 17 and 19.



Largest

The largest pair of twin primes recorded up until the year 2000 was apparently made up of numbers with 18, 075 digits each.



Nobody

This problem has been investigated using computers but nobody has yet managed to find a definite proof or disproof of this statement.



Summary

Are there infinitely many twin pairs of primes?

Can we ever hope to unchangingly prove this singular statement?



The Problem

Are there infinitely many "twin pairs" of primes in existence?



The Answer



Constants

The answer to this conjecture is to realise that there are no unchanging constants in any field of study.



Numbers

Numbers are a human invention.



Symbolism

All numbers symbolise either one, more (or less) than one, or nothing (zero).



Repetition

Any larger combination of numbers is simply the same original three potentials being infinitely repeated and manipulated.



Three answers

This conjecture cannot be unchangingly proven to be true or false because there are three potential answers.

Simultaneously.



Is the twin primes conjecture true or false?

1. The twin primes conjecture is true.

2. The twin primes conjecture is false.

3.The twin primes conjecture is neutral.

Simultaneously.



Am I wrong?

I simultaneously oppose, agree with, and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum.

My point is literal.

There is no point creating a theory of everything that doesn't work.