Andrica's conjecture
Is the difference of square roots of consecutive primes always less than one?
▸Motivation
Dorin Andrica, 1986. Equivalent to a bound on prime gaps of roughly 2√pₙ, which is far stronger than anything known unconditionally.
Verified beyond 10^18. The Riemann hypothesis implies gaps of size about √p·log p, which is larger than what Andrica needs, so even RH does not settle it.
Dorin Andrica, 1986.
▸Lean API
import Mathlib.Data.Nat.Prime.Basic
import Mathlib.Data.Nat.Nth
import Mathlib.Analysis.SpecialFunctions.Sqrt
namespace Conjectura.NT023
/-- Is the gap between consecutive primes always smaller than the gap between their
square roots would allow — that is, `√pₙ₊₁ − √pₙ < 1`? Verified to 10^18. -/
def goal : Prop :=
∀ n : ℕ, Real.sqrt (Nat.nth Nat.Prime (n + 1)) - Real.sqrt (Nat.nth Nat.Prime n) < 1
end Conjectura.NT023▸Definition3
▸Related work0
▸For your AI
I am proving a theorem in Lean 4 and submitting it to Conjectura.
## Problem NT023 — Andrica's conjecture
Is the difference of square roots of consecutive primes always less than one?
## 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 : ∀ n : ℕ,
Real.sqrt (Nat.nth Nat.Prime (n + 1)) - Real.sqrt (Nat.nth Nat.Prime n) < 1 := by
sorry
```
## The file I submit
```lean
import Conjectura.Problems.NT023.Statement
namespace Submission
theorem solution : Conjectura.NT023.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.
### sqrt
def
```lean
Real.sqrt
```
Defined in Mathlib.
### nth
def
```lean
Nat.nth
```
Defined in Mathlib.
### Prime
def
```lean
Nat.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.