Consider the twin primes. So we consider $3,5,7,11,13,17,19,29,31,...$
Call the $n$-th element in the sequence $t(n)$.
Now consider the Sophie Germain primes ( if $p$ is prime, then so is $2p + 1$. ONLY count the $p$ not the $2p+1$ )
Call the $n$-th element of that sequence $s(n)$.
Now for $1000 < n$ a friend noticed a strange pattern.
$$ \frac{\ln(n)}{\ln(2n+1)} 5 < \frac{2 s(n)}{t(n)} < \frac{\ln(2n+1)}{\ln(n)} 5 $$
You can probably guess where the $2n+1$ more or less comes from somehow.
Now for the analogue case; the sexy primes we can easily see why there are probably $2$ times more sexy primes than prime twins. ( mod argument )
So I wonder what the argument is is for the mysterious $5$ ?
There is no proof for the infinitude of twin primes or sophie germain primes, let alone their asymptotics but I ask for the argument of that $5$ not a proof.
I assume there must be reason.
This implies ofcourse that the limit of $2 s(n)/t(n) = 5$ and for instance we see that $s(4800)/t(4800) = 4.966 $.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3179484/a-question-on-the-density-of-sophie-germain-primes
– mick Jun 14 '23 at 22:15