Number Theory |
Authors: Ruben Gafencu
We present a self-contained combinatorial and sieve-theoretic framework forestimating and bounding the number of primes of the form $x^2+1$ in a naturalfamily of intervals. The centrepiece is the emph{Coprime Identity}: for anyinteger $m$ with $n < m le n^2$, $m$ is prime if and only if $m$ is coprimeto the primorial $P_n = prod_{p le n} p$. Applying this identity to thepolynomial $f(x) = x^2+1$ and encoding the root structure of $f(x)bmod p$via quadratic residue theory yields the emph{Quadratic Totient Estimate}[ mathcal{N}(n) ;=; frac{n}{2} prod_{substack{ple n pequiv 1pmod{4}}} !frac{p-2}{p},]which is strictly increasing and diverges to infinity. We then introduce theemph{Quadratic Jacobsthal function} $gQ(n)$, the maximum gap betweenconsecutive survivors of the quadratic sieve for $f$, and give a sieve-theoreticargument --- based on the computation of the sieve dimension $kappa = 1$ andthe linear sieve lower bound --- that $gQ(n) < n^2 - n$ for all sufficientlylarge $n$. Large-scale numerical verification confirms the formula's accuracy:against exact prime counts from OEIS~A002496, the relative error of$mathcal{N}(n)$ remains below $8%$ for $n$ up to $10^{13}$, with systematicimprovement toward zero as a tail-factor correction is applied. We discuss theconnection to the Hardy--Littlewood Conjecture~F, the Bateman--Horn singularseries, and Iwaniec's 1978 $P_2$ theorem, and we carefully delineate theremaining obstacles --- the parity barrier and the rigorous control of theerror term --- that separate this heuristic from a complete proof of Landau'sFourth Problem.
Comments: 14 Pages.
Download: PDF
[v1] 2026-03-22 12:27:12
Unique-IP document downloads: 31 times
ai.Vixra.org is a AI assisted e-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. ai.Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.