Is every even number the sum of two primes?
4 = 2+2, 6 = 3+3, 8 = 3+5. Checked past 4·10^18, unproved since 1742.
▸Motivation
Goldbach's letter to Euler, 1742. The weak version — every odd number above 5 is a sum of three primes — was settled by Harald Helfgott in 2013, but the binary case is untouched by that method.
Vinogradov's 1937 result gives the three-prime version for sufficiently large numbers, and Chen Jingrun proved in 1973 that every large even number is a prime plus a product of at most two primes. The gap from there to two primes is the parity problem again.
Christian Goldbach to Euler, 1742.
▸Lean API
import Conjectura.Statements.Mathematics.NumberTheory.GoldbachConjecture
namespace Conjectura.NT005
/-- Is every even number greater than two a sum of two primes? -/
def goal : Prop := Conjectura.NumberTheory.GoldbachConjectureProp
end Conjectura.NT005▸Definition3
- Goldbach conjectureConjectura.NumberTheory.GoldbachConjectureProp
The Goldbach conjecture: every even number greater than two is a sum of two primes.
def GoldbachConjectureProp : Prop := ∀ n : ℕ, 2 < n → Even n → ∃ p q : ℕ, p.Prime ∧ q.Prime ∧ n = p + q- EvenEven
def
- Primep.Prime
def
▸Related work2
- The ternary Goldbach conjecture is trueHarald Helfgott · 2013
Settles the three-prime version unconditionally; the two-prime case resists the same approach.
- On the representation of a large even integer as the sum of a prime and the product of at most two primesChen Jingrun · 1973
The closest known approximation to the statement.
▸For your AI
I am proving a theorem in Lean 4 and submitting it to Conjectura.
## Problem NT005 — Is every even number the sum of two primes?
4 = 2+2, 6 = 3+3, 8 = 3+5. Checked past 4·10^18, unproved since 1742.
## Environment (fixed — do not assume anything newer)
- Lean toolchain: `leanprover/lean4:v4.33.0-rc1`
- Mathlib: `v4.33.0-rc1`
If a lemma you want does not exist in that Mathlib, prove it inline instead of
importing something newer.
## The exact statement I must prove
```lean
theorem solution : GoldbachConjectureProp := by
sorry
```
## The file I submit
```lean
import Conjectura.Problems.NT005.Statement
namespace Submission
theorem solution : Conjectura.NT005.goal := by
sorry
end Submission
```
## The Lean definitions of every term in this problem
These are the actual definitions your proof will be checked against. Do not
substitute your own version of any of them.
### Goldbach conjecture
The Goldbach conjecture: every even number greater than two is a sum of two primes.
```lean
Conjectura.NumberTheory.GoldbachConjectureProp
-- unfolds to:
def GoldbachConjectureProp : Prop :=
∀ n : ℕ, 2 < n → Even n → ∃ p q : ℕ, p.Prime ∧ q.Prime ∧ n = p + q
```
Defined in this corpus.
### Even
def
```lean
Even
```
Defined in Mathlib.
### Prime
def
```lean
p.Prime
```
Defined in Mathlib.
## Rules — submissions violating these are rejected automatically
1. **Do not change the name or type of `solution`.** It must satisfy the
statement above exactly.
2. **Do not redefine or shadow anything from the problem's Statement module.**
Declaring your own `goal`, or redefining a name it depends on, produces a
proof of a *different* statement and is rejected. This is the single most
common rejection.
3. **No `sorry`** anywhere, including in helper lemmas. It surfaces as the
axiom `sorryAx` and is detected transitively through imports.
4. **No `native_decide`** — it surfaces as `Lean.ofReduceBool` and is not
accepted, because it trusts compiled code rather than the kernel.
5. Only these axioms are permitted: `propext`, `Classical.choice`,
`Quot.sound`.
6. Follow Mathlib style: hypotheses left of the colon, explicit types,
`snake_case` theorem names, `UpperCamelCase` types.
## What I want from you
Here is my argument in informal mathematics:
> [PASTE YOUR PROOF SKETCH HERE]
Turn it into Lean 4 that compiles under the environment above and satisfies the
statement exactly. Where you are unsure a lemma exists in this Mathlib version,
say so explicitly rather than guessing a name.Submissions are not open yet
Conjectura is in beta. You can read every statement, every definition and the Lean behind them, and download the exact files the checker uses — but proofs are not being accepted yet.
The reason is a deliberate order of operations. Accepting a proof means running a stranger’s code and standing behind a verdict, and no statement here yet carries a researcher’s name. A machine-checked answer to a question nobody has vouched for is worth very little, so the vouching comes first.
The English write-ups are also switched off during the beta. Nothing on this page is generated by a model.
Discussion
- Nothing yet.
Sign in to take part.