<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://michaelnielsen.org/polymath/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Louigi</id>
	<title>Polymath Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://michaelnielsen.org/polymath/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Louigi"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://michaelnielsen.org/polymath/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Louigi"/>
	<updated>2026-04-13T17:09:15Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.42.3</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://michaelnielsen.org/polymath/index.php?title=An_efficient_algorithm_exists_if_Cramer%27s_conjecture_holds&amp;diff=2168</id>
		<title>An efficient algorithm exists if Cramer&#039;s conjecture holds</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://michaelnielsen.org/polymath/index.php?title=An_efficient_algorithm_exists_if_Cramer%27s_conjecture_holds&amp;diff=2168"/>
		<updated>2009-08-03T00:10:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Louigi: changed n+ n^{1000} to n+ (log n)^{1000}.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Cramer&#039;s conjecture asserts that for sufficiently large n there is a prime between n and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n+C(\log n)^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This conjecture is plausible if you believe that when you pick a random integers m near n, then the events &amp;quot;m is prime&amp;quot; are roughly independent. In that case, the number of primes between n and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n+C(\log n)^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; should have a Poisson distribution with mean &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;C\log n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; (by the prime number theorem), which means that the probability of getting no prime will be around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(-C\log n)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. If we take C to be greater than 2, then the sum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sum_{n=N}^\infty n\exp(-C\log n)=\sum_{n=N}^\infty n^{1-C}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; converges to around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N^{2-C}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, so we expect there to be no values of n greater than N for which Cramer&#039;s conjecture fails.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, nobody knows how to prove independence of this kind (even after adjusting for obvious dependences, such as the fact that if n is a prime greater than 2, then n+1 is not prime). If they did, then the twin prime conjecture would follow easily, for instance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Cramer&#039;s conjecture is true, then from that and the fact that primality testing is in [[The complexity class P|P]] it follows instantly that there is a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a k-digit prime. You just search through all the integers from &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;10^{k-1}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;10^{k-1}+Ck^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, testing each one for primality in time p(k). This interval is guaranteed to contain a prime, so the algorithm terminates after at most &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Ck^2p(k)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; steps.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is interesting, and shows that there is a deterministic algorithm for finding k-digit primes that probably works. The trouble is, we don&#039;t know how to prove that it works, and are basing our belief that it works on a very strong conjecture. This makes our belief less secure than it would be if we based it on a conjecture such as GRH that has rather more evidence in its favour.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Needless to say, we could increase the security of the above approach by using the weaker conjecture that there is a prime between n and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n+(\log n)^{1000}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Unexpected phenomena do sometimes occur in the distribution of primes &#039;&#039;[reference needed to Maier&#039;s work here]&#039;&#039;, so using a higher power would make the conjecture more robust. But it would still be way beyond what anyone knows how to prove.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Louigi</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>