Predicting the size ranking of minimal primes in the generalised Goldbach partitions

Abstract

A scarcely known generalization of Goldbach's conjecture introduced by Hardy and Littlewood states that for every pair of (relatively prime) positive integers m1 and m2, every sufficiently large integer n satisfying certain simple congruence criteria can be (m1,m2)-partitioned as n = m1p+m2q for some primes p and q. While the size of the minimal prime in the Goldbach partitions of even numbers has received prior attention, we extend this investigation to the general case of (m1,m2)-partitions. This question has a direct implication on the running times of verification algorithms of the generalised Goldbach conjecture. We study the rankings of the pairs (m1,m2) according to the sizes of the averages and maxima, respectively, of the minimal p in the (m1,m2)-partitions of numbers up to large thresholds, and propose a rank-order predicting function depending only on m2 and the prime factors of m1. We computed both the average and the maximum of the minimal prime p in all (m1,m2)-partitions of integers up to 109, for every pair of relatively prime coefficients 1≤ m1≠ m2≤ 40. Our function shows very high rank-order correlations with both the empirical averages and maxima of the minimal primes p (Spearman's =0.9949 and 0.9958, respectively). It also correctly predicts trends in the experimental data, for example, that for all relatively prime 1≤ m1<m2≤ 40, the average minimal p in the (m1,m2)-partitions of numbers up to 109 exceeds the analogous average for the (m2,m1)-partitions. We present numerical data, including the average and the maximum of the minimal p in the (m1,m2)-partitions of numbers up to 109 for each pair 1≤ m1≠ m2≤ 20 relatively prime, and the resulting size rankings.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…