Firoozbakht's conjecture
Is the n-th root of the n-th prime strictly decreasing?
▸Motivation
Farideh Firoozbakht, 1982. Verified to 4·10^18.
It is the strongest of the standard prime-gap conjectures — strong enough that Granville and Pintz have argued from Cramér-model refinements that it is probably false, with a counterexample somewhere beyond computational reach. Included partly because a conjecture believed false is a useful thing to have stated precisely.
Farideh Firoozbakht, 1982. Verified to 4·10^18.
▸Lean API
import Mathlib.Data.Nat.Nth
import Mathlib.Analysis.SpecialFunctions.Pow.Real
namespace Conjectura.NT025
/-- Is the sequence `pₙ^(1/n)` strictly decreasing? Verified to 4·10^18, but it
implies prime gaps smaller than anything the Riemann hypothesis gives, and Granville
and Pintz have argued it is probably false. -/
def goal : Prop :=
∀ n : ℕ, 0 < n →
(Nat.nth Nat.Prime (n + 1) : ℝ) ^ ((1 : ℝ) / (n + 1))
< (Nat.nth Nat.Prime n : ℝ) ^ ((1 : ℝ) / n)
end Conjectura.NT025▸Definition2
▸Related work0
▸For your AI
I am proving a theorem in Lean 4 and submitting it to Conjectura.
## Problem NT025 — Firoozbakht's conjecture
Is the n-th root of the n-th prime strictly decreasing?
## 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, 0 < n →
(Nat.nth Nat.Prime (n + 1) : ℝ) ^ ((1 : ℝ) / (n + 1))
< (Nat.nth Nat.Prime n : ℝ) ^ ((1 : ℝ) / n) := by
sorry
```
## The file I submit
```lean
import Conjectura.Problems.NT025.Statement
namespace Submission
theorem solution : Conjectura.NT025.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.
### 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.