3
$\begingroup$

Let $n\geq2$. Are there sets $A, B \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ such that $|A|=|B|=n$ and all numbers in $A+B$ are primes? A well-known conjecture is that there are infinite set $A$ and finite set $|B|=n$ such that all numbers in $A+B$ are primes.

Are there infinite sets $A, B \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ such that all numbers in $A+B$ are primes? I conjecture that the sets do not exist. Someone told me this question seems to be open.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Doesn’t Maynard’s paper on prime gaps imply there exists an infinite set $A$ and finite set $B$ with $|B|=n$ such that $A+B$ only contains primes? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 10:45
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Why do you conjecture that the infinite sets do not exist when you have been told that the question is open? A research-level conjecture ought to be backed up by some research. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 13:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the introductory question about finite $n$, the answer is yes because the primes contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 13:35

1 Answer 1

11
$\begingroup$

Yes, conditional on the Hardy-Littlewood prime tuples conjecture.

Let $A$ and $B$ be two finite sets such that $A +B$ consists of primes, and such that for all primes $p$, there are residue classes $x_p$ and $y_p$ mod $p$ with $x_p+y_p \neq 0 \mod p$ such that $A$ does not contain any numbers congruent to $x_p$ mod $p$ and $B$ does not contain any numbers congruent to $y_p$ mod $p$.

Conditionally on the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture, it is possible to add one new element to $A$ or $B$, whichever you prefer, while preserving all these properties.

Given this, the existence of infinite $A$, $B$ follows by starting with the empty set, adding an element to $A$, then an element to $B$, then an element to $A$, then an element to $B$, etc. So it suffices to prove this step.

Without loss of generality, we may assume that we are trying to increase $B$.

First, enlarge $A$ to a set $\overline{A}$ such that $\overline{A}$ still does not contain any numbers congruent to $x_p$ mod $p$, and, in addition, for all $p< |B|+3$, $\overline{A}$ contains all residue classes modulo $p$ except $x_p$. This is easy to do with the Chinese remainder theorem (and may require adjusting $x_p$ for $p$ large).

Then $\overline{A}$ is an admissible tuple so, by the Hardy-Littlewood prime tuples conjecture, there is some large $z$ such that $a +z$ is prime for all $a\in \overline{A}$.

Setting $B' = B \cup \{z\}$, we can see that $A = B'$ consists of primes. For each prime $p$, if $p \geq |B|+3$ then there are at least $2$ choices of residue class $y_p$ such that $B'$ does not contain any numbers congruent to $y_p$ mod $p$, so at least $1$ such class satisfying $x_p +y_p \neq 0$ mod $p$. If $p < |B|+3$ then, taking $z$ to be sufficiently large, for every $a\in \overline{A}$, $a + z$ is not $p$ and thus, because it is prime, is not a multiple of $p$. Thus, by assumption on $\overline{A}$, $z$ is congruent to $-x_p$ mod $p$. So for $p <|B|+3$, the same $y_p$ works for $B'$ as worked for $B$.

So indeed $A,B'$ satisfy all the conditions, completing the induction step.


This implication was earlier established by Andrew Granville in A Note on Sums of Primes.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LMP The answer to your last question is "Yes, and that is elementary". You can show more: if a set $P$ does not contain a "recursive interval" $I(N;n_1,\dots,n_m)=\{N+\sum_k\delta_kn_k:\delta_k\in\{0,1\}\}$, then $|P\cap[1,M]|\le C_mM^{q_m}$ with some $q_m<1$, so the primes are just too many. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2021 at 6:37
  • $\begingroup$ i@LMP In addition to what fedja said, even the case $|A|= \infty$, $|B|=n$ is known unconditionally by work of Maynard, as Zach Hunter pointed out. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2021 at 13:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How does this relate to the recent preprint of Tao and Ziegler: arxiv.org/abs/2301.10303 ? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 28, 2023 at 13:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @SamHopkins The relation is described in that preprint by the sentences: "We remark that it was previously shown in [8] that Conjecture 1.2 implied that the primes contained the sumset A + B of two infinite [sets] A, B; Theorem 1.3 provides a new proof of this claim." They could have cited this MO answer instead of the reference [8] (but shouldn't have, as [8] was much earlier.) So the relation is that one of their theorems implies the result of this answer, and another of their theorems is separate. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 28, 2023 at 16:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.