As follows from my previous question, I've been playing with the Riemann hypothesis as a matter of recreational mathematics. In the process, I've come to a rather interesting recurrence, and I'm curious as to its name, its reductions, and its tractability towards the solvability of the gap between prime numbers.

Tersely speaking, we can define the gap between each prime number as a recurrence of preceding candidate primes. For example, for our base of $p_0 = 2$, the next prime would be:

$\qquad \displaystyle p_1 = \min \{ x > p_0 \mid -\cos(2\pi(x+1)/p_0) + 1 = 0) \}$

Or, as we see by plotting this out: $p_1 = 3$.

We can repeat the process for $n$ primes by evaluating each candidate prime recurring forward. Suppose we want to get the next prime, $p_2$. Our candidate function becomes:

$\qquad \displaystyle \begin{align} p_2 = \min\{ x > p_1 \mid f_{p_1}(x) + (&(-\cos(2\pi(x+1)/p_1) + 1) \\ \cdot &(-\cos(2\pi(x+2)/p_1) + 1)) = 0\} \end{align}$


$\qquad \displaystyle f_{p_1}(x) = -\cos(2\pi(x+1)/p_0) + 1$, as above.

It's easy to see that each component function only becomes zero on integer values, and it's equally easy to show how this captures our AND- and XOR-shaped relationships cleverly, by exploiting the properties of addition and multiplication in the context of a system of trigonometric equations.

The recurrence becomes:

$\qquad f_{p_0} = 0\\ \qquad p_0 = 2\\ \qquad \displaystyle f_{p_n}(x) = f_{p_{n-1}}(x) + \prod_{k=2}^{p_{n-1}} (-\cos(2\pi(x+k-1)/p_{n-1}) + 1)\\ \qquad \displaystyle p_n = \min\left\{ x > p_{n-1} \mid f_{p_n}(x) = 0\right\}$

... where the entire problem hinges on whether we can evaluate the $\min$ operator over this function in polynomial time. This is, in effect, a generalization of the Sieve of Eratosthenes.

Working Python code to demonstrate the recurrence:

from math import cos,pi

def cosProduct(x,p):
    """ Handles the cosine product in a handy single function """
    ret = 1.0
    for k in xrange(2,p+1):
        ret *= -cos(2*pi*(x+k-1)/p)+1.0
    return ret

def nthPrime(n):
    """ Generates the nth prime, where n is a zero-based integer """

    # Preconditions: n must be an integer greater than -1
    if not isinstance(n,int) or n < 0:
        raise ValueError("n must be an integer greater than -1")

    # Base case: the 0th prime is 2, 0th function vacuous
    if n == 0:
        return 2,lambda x: 0

    # Get the preceding evaluation
    p_nMinusOne,fn_nMinusOne = nthPrime(n-1)

    # Define the function for the Nth prime
    fn_n = lambda x: fn_nMinusOne(x) + cosProduct(x,p_nMinusOne)

    # Evaluate it (I need a solver here if it's tractable!)
    for k in xrange(p_nMinusOne+1,int(p_nMinusOne**2.718281828)):
        if fn_n(k) == 0:
            p_n = k

    # Return the Nth prime and its function
    return p_n,fn_n

A quick example:

>>> [nthPrime(i)[0] for i in range(20)]
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71]

The trouble is, I'm now in way over my head, both mathematically and as a computer scientist. Specifically, I am not competent with Fourier analysis, with defining uniform covers, or with the complex plane in general, and I'm worried that this approach is either flat-out wrong or hides a lurking horror of a 3SAT problem that elevates it to NP-completeness.

Thus, I have three questions here:

  1. Given my terse recurrence above, is it possible to deterministically compute or estimate the location of the zeroes in polynomial time and space?
  2. If so or if not, is it hiding any other subproblems that would make a polytime or polyspace solution intractable?
  3. And if by some miracle (1) and (2) hold up, what dynamic programming improvements would you make in satisfying this recurrence, from a high level? Clearly, iteration over the same integers through multiple functions is inelegant and quite wasteful.
  • $\begingroup$ And for those still here in spite of my wall of text: I'm unsure if this reduces itself to the Riemann zeta, thereby giving it the same complexity. I don't believe it does, though. $\endgroup$ – MrGomez May 22 '12 at 0:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1) What tags would you like? You can create them yourself by just using them. 2) Please give a general definition for $f$, i.e. what is $f(p_n)$? 3) If you don't get an answer on this after a week or so, you might want to move it so cstheory.SE. $\endgroup$ – Raphael May 22 '12 at 7:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not following everything in your post. I guess you mean NP-complete not NP. Generally proving that a number theoretic function is NP-complete is quite difficult task since they often lack/hide any combinatorial structure that would allow us to design gadgets for the reduction. $\endgroup$ – Kaveh May 22 '12 at 17:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Revision complete. There are sure to be other lurking issues, but my original representation was quite off the mark. I should consult with my 24-hours-younger self and give him a refresher on proper definitions of $f(x)$. In any case, thank you for your patience and your edits so far. The current tags are also now to my satisfaction. :) $\endgroup$ – MrGomez May 23 '12 at 6:21
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding $f$, is it not sufficient to "check" all smaller primes as opposed to all smaller numbers? $\endgroup$ – Raphael May 23 '12 at 7:02

The following paper shows that PRIMES is in P (it also won a Gödel award in 2006):


By setting the solution of the Nth prime minimization procedure to the AKS PRIMES algorithm (modulo a subtraction), we may effectively get a tractable solution to the recurrence relation (if you can prove that the prime gap is given by the recurrence relation).

Source codes can be found on the internet. I am not pointing to them here because I did not check them personally.

As is however, we may still have the upper bound of $\sqrt{n}$ for checking all numbers...

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The Rosettacode page is completely mis-named. This is not the AKS primality test, and is a restatement of trial division by all integers less than n. On the other hand, noting that primality is in P and seeing if that sheds any light on the original question is worth asking. $\endgroup$ – DanaJ Aug 11 '14 at 0:58
  • $\begingroup$ Good point... I'll fix that... $\endgroup$ – user13675 Aug 11 '14 at 19:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Primes in P doesn't imply that we can generate prime numbers deterministically in polynomial time. It is a hard open problem. ($\sqrt{n}$ is an exponential functions in the size of the input which is $\lg n$.) $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Aug 19 '14 at 23:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.