A Simple Yet Absolute Proof of the Twin Primes Conjecture

I was drawn back to a previous video of mine 'The Fallacy of the Twin Primes Conjecture.' by a vanishing comment about rabbit holes and not doing the 'work' and other drivel and bingo this proof just evolved.

[johntryl]

@4:38 I've made this error myself too, while searching for a solution to twine primes ... proving that something is always possible (noted as NEVER impossible in the table), is different from proving that it always happens; @6:41 we have not shown [5] ad infinitum, that's what we're trying to show, but we haven't shown it; @7:08, quoting euler does not constitute a proof ... still happy to see people working on this problem though - will be cool if we ever do get a proof, keep fighting the good fight

[samueldeandrade]

Man, I heard stories that several people write wrong proofs for theorems. And now I saw the second wrong proof of the Twin Primes Conjecture. Amazing. The stories were true.

[tadeastkadlec]

The proof left the chat apparently. But seriously, in the video you basically just said “if this is true for so many numbers than it must be true for every number”. Most of the time yes, but this is no proof, only a speculation which many before you had. And you can find examples where a pattern fails for “large” numbers.

[wickbobby]

There are so many assumptions here. 4:13 you’re literally just saying that they are an inescapable necessity. Not proving it, just saying it.