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-01251852v3�

HAL Id: hal-01251852

https://hal.science/hal-01251852v3
Preprint submitted on 23 Jan 2016

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

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Proof by Mathematical induction of the
strong Goldbachs conjecture
Douadi MIHOUBI
LMPA, the University of M’sila, 28000 M’sila, Algeria.
[email protected]
January 22, 2016

Abstract
To prove the conjecture, we consider for any even natural num-
ber 2n > 4, with n > 2, the …nite sequence of natural numbers
Sm (n) = (si (n))i2f1;2;:::;mg de…ned by: si (n) = 2n pi , where pi is
the ith prime number in the …nite strictly ordered sequence of primes

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

where m = (2n) denotes the number of primes p such that p < 2n.
Using two stages of proof: the proof by contradiction and mathemat-
ical induction, we prove 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 con…rms the result 2n = sr (n) + pr where pr
is the r th prime number of the sequence Pm . This result con…rms
the validity of Goldbach’s statement which expresses 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 from 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 approaches of attack to this famous conjecture
emerged : "asymptotic study", "almost primes study" and …nally "basis".

The …rst 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.
Q
r
A natural number n = pei i (where each pi is a prime) is called a k-
i=1
P
r
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 su¢ ciently large even integer is in the set Ph + Pk of sums
of integers of Ph and Pk . The …rst result in this line of study was obtained
by Brun in 1919 by showing that: every su¢ ciently large even number is in
P9 + P9 . In 1950, Selberg further improved the result by showing that every
su¢ ciently large even integers 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 su¢ ciently large even integer may be written as 2n = p + m, where p
is a prime and m 2 P2

2
1.1 The result of this paper
To prove the conjecture, we consider for any even natural number 2n > 4,
with n > 2, the …nite sequence of natural numbers Sm (n) = (si (n))i2f1;2;:::;mg
de…ned by: si (n) = 2n pi where pi is the ith prime number in the …nite
strictly ordered sequence of primes

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

where m = (2n) denotes the number of primes p such that p < 2n. Using
two stages of proof: the proof by contradiction (or reductio ad absurdum)
including the inductive proof or mathematical induction, we prove 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 con…rms the result 2n =
sr (n) + pr where pr is the r th prime number of the sequence Pm . It is
noted here that a solution of the equation 2n = p + q exists only if p is a
prime number and also q = 2n p is a prime number and both p and q belong
to the …nite sequence of primes Pm . We give also an asymptotic estimation
to con…rm 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 principle). Another way
to see the well-ordering of N is that any natural number n can be reached in
…nite counting steps by ascent (adding 1) or descent (subtracting 1) from any
other natural number m; there isn’t an in…nite descent on natural numbers.
This signi…cant 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) depending 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 that b is a
multiple of a. If a is not a divisor of b, then we write a - b. A natural number

3
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 a 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
denote by

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

the in…nite increasing sequence of primes, where pi is the ith prime in this
sequence. Euclid’s theorem ensures that there are in…nitely many primes,
without knowing their pattern and indication of how to determine the ith
prime number. There is no regularity in the distribution of these primes
on the chain (N; ); in certain situation they are twins, i.e., there exists a
positive integer k such pk+1 = pk + 2, like p2 = 3 and p3 = 5, p5 = 11 and
p6 = 13 (it is not known today whether there are in…nitely many twin primes),
while at the same time, for any integer k 2, the sequence of successive k 1
natural 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 arithmetics 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 (n) the number of primes p n,
( (n) is called also the prime counting function, for example (4) = 2,
(5) = 3,...etc.). The fundamental theorem of primes (Tcheybeche¤ gave
an empirical estimation around 1850, Hadamard and de Vallée-Poussin the-
oretical proof at the end of 19 th century) shows that, for any large natural
n
number n, we have (n) ln n
and then pn n ln n where ln denotes the
natural logarithm of base e = 2; 71:::. Finally, Bertrand’s postulate (1845)
provides that between any natural number n 2 and its double 2n there ex-
ists at least one prime. Equivalently, this may be stated as (2n) (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 prime sums of the …rst n primes, denoted (n), is
P P
n
asymptotically equal to 21 n2 ln n, i.e., (n) = pi 12 n2 ln n.
i=1
Finally, the proof by contradiction and the inductive proof can be stated

4
as follows. Proving by so called proof by contradiction or reduction to absur-
dum, the validity of the property H, consists in assuming that the hypothesis
H is false, which is then logically equivalent to (not 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 con…rms 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 …rst step, the
validity of the statement H for certain element n0 2 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 2 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 constructing and analysing the sequence Sm (n), we begin by these

simple lemmas in view of their usefulness for the rest of the paper.

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

Proof. By de…nition 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
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 be odd and then greater or equal to
the number 3.

5
Lemma 3 Any natural number b 6= 1 admits a prime divisor. If b is not
prime, then there exists a prime p divisor of b such that p2 b.

Proof. By the de…nition 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 proper 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 = f1; 2; :::; mg the …nite

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

Lemma 4 Let m 1 be a natural number. Let a = (a1 < a2 ::: < am ),

b = (b1 < b2 < ::: < bm ) be two strictly an increasing m-sequences of natural
numbers such that for each i 2 Im there exists j 2 Im such that ai = bj .
Then we have for each i 2 Im : ai = bi .

Proof. By induction on i 2 Im . For i = 1, if a1 < b1 then a1 < b1 <

b2 ::: < bm , and we have a1 2 = b = (bi )i2Im , a contradiction. For the same
reason, if b1 < a1 , we obtain b1 2 = a = (bi )i2Im 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 exists no bj for
j i + 1 such that ai+1 = bj and there exists no bj for j i because
ai+1 > ai = bi > ai 1 = bi 1 > ::: > a1 = b1 , a contradiction. The same
argument holds if bi+1 < ai+1 , then it is necessary that we have ai+1 = bi+1 .
Consequently, for each i 2 Im : ai = bi .
Note that the condition "ai = bj " for some i; j 2 Im ", in the lemma 4
above, is necessary and su¢ cient condition. It is necessary because we can ex-
hibit two increasing m sequences a = (a1 < a2 ::: < am ), b = (b1 < b2 < ::: < bm )
Pm Pm
with ai = bi but ai 6= bi for all i 2 Im , for example, a = (2 < 10) and
i=1 i=1
b = (4 < 8).
Let n 2 be a natural number, we consider the …nite strictly increasing
sequence of prime numbers

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

6
where m = (2n) denotes the number of primes p < 2n. Let Pm = (pi )i2Im
denote this …nite successive primes strictly less than 2n. The Bertrand postu-
lat asserts that at least the prime pm is between n and its double 2n. For any
natural number n > 2, we consider the …nite sequence Sm (n) = (si (n))i2Im
of natural numbers de…ned 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 …nite sequence of primes less than 20 is p1 =

2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < p4 = 7 < p5 = 11 < p6 = 13 < p7 = 17 <
p8 = 19. Consequently (20) = 8 and then the sequence S8 (n) = S8 (10) =
(si (10))i2f1;2;:::;8g 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.

Lemma 6 For the natural number n > 2 with m = (2n), the …nite se-
quence of natural numbers Sm (n) = (si (n))i2Im de…ned 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 …rst 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.

7
Proof. Let n > 2 be a natural number with m = (2n). Since the …nite
sequence of primes p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < ::: < pi < ::: < pm is strictly
increasing, and each term si (n) is de…ned by 2n pi , 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 …rst term s1 (n) = 2n 2 is the unique even number 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 8p 2 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))i2Im , for any natural number n > 2
with m = (2n)

Theorem 7 For any natural number n > 2 with m = (2n), the …nite
sequence of natural numbers Sm (n) = (si (n))i2Im de…ned by si (n) = 2n pi ,
with 1 i m, contains at least one prime sr 2 Pm \ Sm (n).

Proof. For any natural number n > 2, let Sm (n) = (si (n))i2Im be the …nite
sequence of natural numbers as de…ned in section 3 above. The proof is by
contradiction, and so we 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) 2
Sm (n), for any i 2 Im , it is not a prime number".

8
This is equivalent to:

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

Symbolically the hypothsis H (n) can be written as

"9 (n > 2) 2 N; 8 i 2 f1; 2; 3; :::mg: 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 Lemma 6).
The last term sm (n) = 2n pm is the unique term of the sequence Sm (n),
which 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 reject the hypothesis H (n) for all n > 2, (in symbolic
terms this contradiction is written: 8 (n > 2)2 N; 9i 2 f1; 2; 3; :::mg such
that si (n) is a prime number), we compute the sum of the terms of the se-
quence Sm (n) in two di¤erent ways: In the …rst way, we compute the sum
Pm
si (n) without any hypothesis, which represents the sum of the e¤ective
i=1
P
m
values of the terms. In the second way, we compute the sum si (n), where
i=1
each term si (n) 6= 1 of Sm (n) is supposed to be a composite natural number,
under the hypothesis H (n), for all n > 2.
In the …rst way:
X
m X
m
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 e¤ective values of the terms for n > 2.
In the second way:
X
m
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

9
number for all i 2 Im or i 2 Im 1 in the case when sm (n) = 2n pm = 1.
In the …rst way, we have:
Pm P
m
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 Pm Pm
= 2n pi = 2nm pi .
i=1 i=1 i=1
This positive integer value represents, for n > 2, the e¤ective value of sum of
all the terms of the sequence Sm (n) with m = (2n). Evidently m and then
Sumrel (n) are depending on the natural number n > 2, when n run over N.
In the second way, from the lemma 6, all the terms of sequence Sm (n) are
odd numbers except the …rst 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:
0
si (n) = pi (n) qi (n)
(under H(n))
0
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
su¢ ces to see the Lemma 3, and qi (n) is the other proper factor. According
0
to Lemmas 2 and 6, the factors pi (n), qi (n) are odd 3, for all i 2 f2; :::; mg
in the case when pm 6= 2n 1, and for all i 2 f2; :::; m 1g 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), and it is evidently a composite number. Since si (n) =
0 0
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 f2; :::; m 1g if the above factorisation exists.
Pm
Two cases are to be considered for Sumhyp (n) = si (n),
i=1
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).

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

view of H (n), and we have:

10
 P
m P
m P
m
0
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, we have
sm (n) = 2n pm = 2n (2n 1) = 1, thus we have:
P
m P1
m
Sumhyp (n) = si (n) = s1 (n) + si (n) + sm (n) =
i=1 i=2
P1
m
0
(2n 2) + pi (n) qi (n) + 1.
i=2
Since any term si (n) is between the numbers 1 and 2n 2, we then have :
n 0 0 0
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) = fq2 (n) ; q3 (n) :::; qm (n)g

with 3 qi (n) < 2n 2, 8i 2 f2; 3; :::; mg (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 Symbollicaly in
cases 1 and 2 as the following forms:

1st case :
X
m
0
X
m
(2n 2) + pi (n) qi (n) > 2nm pi
i=2 i=1

2nd case :

X1
m
0
X
m
(2n 2) + pi (n) qi (n) + 1 > 2nm pi
i=2 i=1

Note that, the …rst even term s1 (n) = 2n p1 = 2n 2 = 2 (n 1) is

11
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 = (2n) with n > 2.

It is noted here that the set of all (m 1) sequences S (n) = (si (n))i2f;2;3;:::mg
of (m 1) terms with si (n) = p0i (n) qi (n) as de…ned above, can be ordered
using usual ordering on N extended to the cross-product of (m 1) copies
of N. This ordering is de…ned by:
For S (n) = (si (n))i2f;2;3;:::mg , S 0 (n) = (s0i (n))i2f;2;3;:::mg , we note by S (n)
S 0 (n) if si (n) s0i (n) for all i 2 f; 2; 3; :::mg. Evidently, the ordering
is re‡exive, transtive and for the antisymmetry we have: if S (n) S 0 (n)
and S 0 (n) S (n) then si (n) = p0i (n) qi (n) = s0i (n) = p00i (n) qi0 (n) and we
have p0i (n) = p00i (n) and qi (n) = qi0 (n) because p0i (n), p00i (n) are the smallest
primes divisor of the same natural number si (n) = s0i (n) which is an unic
prime, and then also we must have qi (n) = qi0 (n). It is noted here that the
ordering relation is compatible P 0 withPthe operation + of natural numbers,
0
and if S (n) S (n) then S (n) S (n).
The least strictly increasing (m 1)-sequence T3m = (ti )i2Im of com-
posite odd natural numbers.

To show that the inequalties in 1st case and 2nd case are always satis…ed
for any natural number n > 2, we exhibit an explicite strictly increasing
sequence of m natural numbers T3m = (ti )i2f1;2;3;:::mg de…ned 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. 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 …nite
sequence Sm (n) = (si (n))i2f1;2;3;:::mg of m terms with si (n) = p0i (n) qi (n) as
de…ned above. In others words, the …nite sequence T3m = (ti )i2f1;2;3;:::mg
satis…es the hypothesis H (n) and the condition:
P
m P
m
0
(2n 2) + ti (2n 2) + pi (n) qi (n) in the 1st case,
i=2 i=2
P1
m P1
m
0
or (2n 2) + ti + 1 (2n 2) + pi (n) qi (n) + 1 in the 2nd case
i=2 i=2
for any other sequence Sm (n) = (si (n))i2Im as de…ned above and satis…es
the hypothesis H (n).
The sequence T3m = (ti )i2Im can be de…ned by:

12
t1 = 2n 2,

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

i 2 fm; :::; 2g.

The last term tm is equal to 3 3 or 1 depending on respectively to the cases

1st case or 2nd case.
0
In fact, since for any i 2 f2; :::; mg we have pi (n) 2 fp2 ; p3 ; :::; pm g it su¢ ces
to take:

ti1 = 3 = min fp2 = 3; p3 = 5; :::; pm g,

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 the smallest odd natural numbers greater or equal to
the number 3, it su¢ ces to take for the second’s terms ti2 the …rst (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 de…ned 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 order from i 2.
For example for n = 3 we have m = (6) = jfp1 ; p2 ; p3 gj = 3 and then the
sequence T33 = (ti )i2I3 is (6 2 = 4; 3 3; 3 5).
The sequence T3m as de…ned above satis…es the hypothesis H (n) in the sense
that any term of the sequence is a composite odd natural number greater than
or equal to the number 3, except the …rst, that is a composite even number.
Pm
To con…rm that we have: Sumhyp (n) ti for any n 3.
i=1
We recall …rst that we have:

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

0 0
and then: si (n) = pi (n) qi (n) > pi+1 (n) qi+1 (n) = si+1 (n)

13
 0
for all i 2 f2; :::; m 1g under the hypothesis H (n) where pi (n) and qi (n)
are odd natural numbers 3.
We have:
P
m
0 P
m
Sumhyp (n) = (2n 2) + pi (n) qi (n) (2n 2) + 3 qi (n)
i=2 i=2
P
m P
m
(2n 2) + 3 (2 (i 1) + 1) = ti .
i=2 i=1
0
In fact, since for all 2 i m, pi (n) 2 fp2 ; p3 ; :::; pm g,
0
we have: pi (n) ti1 = 3 = min fp2 = 3; p3 = 5; :::; pm g

and since 3 qi (n) > 3 qi+1 (n) for all i 2 f2; 3; :::m 1g,

then qi (n) > qi+1 (n) 3 for all i 2 f2; 3; :::m 1g, i.e.,

q2 (n) > q3 (n) ::: > qm 1 (n) > qm (n) 3

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

P
m Pm
3 qi (n) 3 ti2 because ti2 belongs to the …rst (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 other (m 1) in-
creasing sequence of odd natural numbers greater than or equal to the number
3.
Thus, the sequence T3m possesses the property that is the smallest, in sum
of terms, among any other increasing m-sequence Tm = (ti )i2f1;2;3;:::mg , of
composite odd natural numbers greater than or equal to the number 3, except
the …rst term is even de…ned 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 in…nite chain of increasing (m 1) sequences of
odd composite natural numbers Tpm = (p tj2 )j2f2;:::;mg where p is an odd
prime number and tj2 is taken from the …rst (m 1) consecutive odd nat-
ural numbers 3, i.e., tj2 2 f3; 5; 7; 9; 11; ::::; (2 (m 1) + 1)g. We have for
example for p3 = 5 : T5m = f5 3 < 5 5 < :::: < 5 (2 (m 1) + 1)g with

14
P P
m
T5m = 5 ti2 , and for p4 = 7 :
i=2
P P
m
T7m = f7 3<7 5 < ::: < 7 (2 (m 1) + 1)g with T7m = 7 ti2 and
i=2
so on forever.
P 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
(ktj2 )j2f2;:::;mg with k 2 N : k 3 < k 5 < ::: < k (2 (m 1) + 1),
the smallest is T1m = f3 < 5 < :::: < (2 (m 1) + 1)g, and the second is
T2m = f2 3 < 2 5 < :::: < 2 (2 (m 1) + 1)g. In this case we have:
T1m < T2m < T3m < T4m < T5m < T6m < T7m < :::.
P
m
We compute in …rst the sum ti (n) in the cases 1st case and 2nd case.
i=1
In the 1rt case, i.e., when tm 6= 1,
we have:
P
m P
m P
m
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).

In the second case 2nd case , i.e, in the case when tm = 1 , we have:
Pm P1
m mP1
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 =

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

(2n 2) + 3 (m) (m 2) + 1.

Our objective is to show that with this least …nite sequence T3m = (ti )i2Im ,
Pm Pm
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 con…rm that the factorisation of each term of Sm (n) = (si (n))i2Im as
0 0
si (n) = pi (n) qi (n), with the factors pi (n), qi (n) are odd natural
(under H(n))

15
numbers 3 for all i 2 f2; :::; mg under H (n),cannot exist and then the
refutation of H (n) for all n 3.
P
m
Since the quantities Sumrel (n) and ti are natural numbers depending on
i=1
the natural variable n, we can then proceed by induction for n 3 to verify
P
m
that Sumrel (n) < ti (n).
i=1

Veri…cation for the integer n = 3.

On the one hand, we have 2n = 6 and then:
P
3
m= (2n) = (6) = jfp1 ; p2 ; p3 gj = jf2; 3; 5gj = 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, i.e. s3 (3) = 1, then the
P
m
2nd case which will be used to compute ti (n) = (2n 2) + 3 (m) (m 2) +
i=1
1. We have:
P3
ti (n) = (2 3 2) + 3 (3) (3 2) + 1 = 4 + 9 + 1 = 14,
i=1
P
3
Consequently, Sumrel (3) = 8 < 14 = ti (3), and therefore the base case
i=1
for the induction is the natural number 3.
Veri…cation again for the integer n = 4.
On the one hand, we have 2n = 8 and then:
P
4
m = (2n) = (8) = jfp1 ; p2 ; p3 ; p4 gj = jf2; 3; 5; 7gj = 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
P
4
Sumrel (4) = 15 < ti (n) = 31.
i=1
P
(2n+2)
2. Veri…cation if Sumrel (n + 1) < ti (n + 1) at step n + 1, given
i=1
P
(2n)
that we have Sumrel (n) < ti (n) at step n.
i=1

16
Recall that we have two cases to consider at step n + 1.
- If the prime pm+1 6= 2n + 1, in this case pm+1 > 2n + 2 and consequently
we have (2n) = (2n + 2) = m, this shows that we are in the 1st 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 (2n + 2) = m + 1, this shows that
there are m + 1 terms with sm+1 (n + 1) = 1. We start with the second case
for simplicity: At the step n + 1, in the 2nd case,
On the one hand, we have:

P
m+1 P
m
Sumrel (n + 1) = si (n + 1) = (2 (n + 1) pi ) + sm+1 (n + 1) =
i=1 i=1
P
m P
m
((2n pi ) + 2) + 1 = (2n pi ) + 2m + 1 = Sumrel (n) + 2m + 1.
i=1 i=1
On the other hand,
P
m+1
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) =
P
m
ti (n) + 6m 3.
i=1
P
m
Since we have Sumrel (n) < ti (n) at step n, and we have 2m+1 < 6m 3
i=1
for m 2, then

P
m+1
Sumrel (n + 1) = Sumrel (n) + 2m + 1 < ti (n + 1) =
i=1
P
m
ti (n) + (6m 3).
i=1

We conclude that the condition is satis…ed at step n + 1.

For the 1st case, if the prime pm+1 6= 2n + 1, then pm+1 > 2n + 2, and
consequently, (2n) = (2n + 2) = m.

17
On the one hand, we have:
P
m P
m
Sumrel (n + 1) = (2 (n + 1) pi ) = ((2n pi ) + 2)
i=1 i=1
P
m
= (2n pi ) + 2m = Sumrel (n) + 2m.
i=1
On the other hand,
P
m P
m
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 =

P
m
2+ ti (n)
i=1
P
m
Since we have sumrel (n) < ti (n) at step n, and
i=1
Sumrel (n + 1) = Sumrel (n) + 2m, we cannot decide for the moment that
we have
P
m
Sumrel (n + 1) < 2 + ti (n). Remark that we have added to sumrel (n)
i=1
the number 2 to each term si (n), from the step n to the step n+1, and added
Pm
only the number 2 to the …rst term t1 (n + 1) = t1 (n) + 2 in sum ti (n).
i=1
P
m
Evidently, we have Sumrel (n + 1) < 2m + ti (n).
i=1
We have three cases to study:
Pm
a). Sumrel (n + 1) < ti (n + 1), or
i=1
Pm P
m
b). Sumrel (n + 1) = ti (n + 1), or c). Sumrel (n + 1) > ti (n + 1).
i=1 i=1
If the case (a) is true we have done, i.e., the case is satis…ed. For the case
(b), suppose that we have
Pm
Sumrel (n + 1) = ti (n + 1) ()
i=1
P
m P
m
(2 (n + 1) pi ) = ti (n + 1) =
i=1 i=1
P
m
(2(n + 1) 2) + 3 (2 (i 1) + 1) ()
i=2
P
m Pm
(2 (n + 1) pi ) = 3 (2 (i 1) + 1).
i=2 i=2

18
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,

with the condition that for each i 2 f2; 3; :::mg there exists j 2 f2; 3; :::mg
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 that the i-th element of the …rst sequence
equal to the i-th element of the second sequence for any i 2 f2; :::; mg, 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 is a divisor of 2 (n + 1) pi for i 2 f2; 3; :::; mg. 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 0 , with k 0 = (2 (m 1) + 1),=) 2 (n + 1) = 3 k 0 + 3.
Then 3 k + 5 = 3 k 0 + 3 =) 3 (k k 0 ) = 2, which is impossible in 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
P compare 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 =

19
P
m
ti (n) + 2 (m + 1) (m 1) + 2.
i=1
P
m
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 no sequence
P Tpm between T3m and T5m such that:
(2 (n + 1) 2) + Tpm = Sumrel (n + 1). Since we have Sumrel (n + 1) 6=
Pm
ti (n + 1) in the case (b), consequently, we must have:
i=1
P
m
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, 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 its right
side is an even number and then the impossibility, follows 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 + 21 which is impossible in N.
Then the only case which remain is
P
m
Sumrel (n + 1) = (2 (n + 1) pi ) =
i=1
P
m P
(2 (n + 1) 2) + (2 (n + 1) pi ) < (2 (n + 1) 2) + T2m ()
i=2
P
m P P
m P
m
(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:
X
m
(2 (n + 1) pi ) < 2 (m + 1) (m 1)
i=2

20
 P
m
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 …rst (m 1) consecutive odd numbers
P
m
i.e., (2 (n + 1) pi ) < 2 (m + 1) (m 1).
i=2
P
(2n)
In conclusion, in any cases we have : Sumrel (n) < ti (n). Since we
i=1
have isolated the …rst term s1 (n) and the last term sm (n) (in the case when
sm (n) = 1), from our comparison, the above result con…rms that the factori-
0
sation of each term of Sm (n) = (si (n))i2Im as si (n) = pi (n) qi (n),
(under H(n))
0
with 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 hy-
pothesis H (n) for any n 3. Consequently, for each n 3, there exists
0
at least one r 2 f2; 3; :::; mg such that the odd term sr (n) = pr (n) qr (n)
0
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) cannot be even with the same reason, then
necessarily the factor qr (n) must be equal to the natural number 1. Then,
0 0
we must have: sr (n) = pr (n) 1 = pr (n) 2 fp2 = 3; p3 = 5; :::; pm g Pm .
Thus, we obtain for each n > 2, an odd prime number sr (n) claimed by the
theorem.

Example 8 For n = 5, the …nite sequence of primes less than 10 is p1 =

2 < p2 = 3 < p3 = 5 < p4 = 7, consequently m = (10) = 4. The sequence
S4 (5) = (si (5))i2f1;2;:::;4g 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 …nite 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 = (28) = 9. The sequence S9 (14) = (si (14))i2f1;2;:::;9g 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

21
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.

Proof. If n = 2 then, 4 = 2 + 2. If n > 2, we consider the …nite se-

quence of primes Pm := (p1 = 2 < p2 = 3 < :::: < pm ) with m = (2n) and
let Sm (n) = (si (n))i2Im be the …nite sequence of natural numbers de…ned by
si (n) = 2n pi , where pi is ith prime of Pm . From Theorem 7 there exists at
least one prime number sr (n) 2 Sm (n). As we have sr (n) = 2n pr with pr
is the r-th prime number of sequence Pm , we have s = sr (n) = 2n pr and
consequently 2n = pr + s. It follows that Goldbach’s conjecture is e¤ectively
a theorem of number theory.
As consequence of this results, given an even natural number 2n 4 with
n 2, to …nd the pair of primes numbers (p; s) such that 2n = p+s, it su¢ ces
that the algorithm runs through the …nite sequence Sm (n) = (si (n))i2Im ,
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 …nite sequence primes such that m = (2n).
We have: gcd (2n p1 ; 2n p2 ; :::; 2n pm ) = 1.

Proof. From 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 2n pm 3, we
P
m Pm
have from the theorem 7, (2n pi ) < 2 ti2 , this result shows that there
i=2 i=2
is not any common divisor of (2n p1 ; 2n p2 ; :::; 2n pm ) greater than 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 positive real-valued continuous
functions f (x), h (x), means that limx!1 fh(x)
(x)
= 1, and in this case f (x),
h (x) are said to be asymptotically equal as x tends to in…nity.

22
 To con…rm for a large n the result obtained in the theorem 7, we use only
n
P P
n
1 2
the following asymptotic result: (n) ln n
and (n) = pi 2
n ln n.
i=1
The result obtained in the theorem 7, states that we have:
P
m
(2n pi ) < 2 (m + 1) (m 1) ()
i=2
P
m
2n (m 1) pi < 2 (m + 1) (m 1) ()
i=2
P
m
2n (m 1) < 2 (m + 1) (m 1) + pi .
i=2
2
For a large number n 2 N, 2n (m 1) (2n) ln2n2n = ln4n2n = h (n),
P
m
2 2
and 2 (m + 1) (m 1) + pi 2 ln2n2n + 12 n2 ln n = (ln8n2n)2 + 12 n2 ln n =
i=2
f (n). We have:
1 2
f (n) 2 8n2 ln 2n n ln n ln 2n ln 2n2
h(n)
= (ln8n2n)2 + 12 n2 ln n ln 2n
4n2
= 4n2 (ln 2n)2
+ 2
4n2
= 2
ln 2n
+ 8
.
We have: limn!1 fh(n)(n)
= 1 and this result con…rm that we have also
h (n) f (n) for a large n 2 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, Je¤ry Shallit. Algorithmic number theory, vol I: E¢ cient 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.

23
[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.

24