Authored by Khusraw (Ismail Mostafanejad) — 2–4 July 2026
For all even integers \(n > 2\), there exist prime numbers \(p, q\) such that \(n = p + q\).
All primes \(p > 2\) are odd (already proven by mathmaticians). Therefore:
Note that \(\mathbb{N}\) is a subset of \(\mathbb{Z}\) and it can be substituted by \(\mathbb{N}\) above, but by division I got even numbers from \(\mathbb{Z}\).
Then it is satisfying if we prove it for \(O \supset P_{>2}\). We use the dialectical methodology: Trails → Deductive → Inductive.
Step 1: \(n = 4 \Rightarrow 1 + 3 = 4\) (1 and 3 are both primes)
Step 2: \(n = 6 \Rightarrow 1 + 5 = 3 + 3 = 6\) (1, 3, 5 are all primes)
Step 3: \(n = 8 \Rightarrow 1 + 7 = 3 + 5 = 8\) (1, 3, 5, 7 are all primes)
…
Step m: \(n \Rightarrow p + q = n\)
Step m+1: \(n + 2 \Rightarrow p + q = n + 2\)
Assume \(p = 2k + 1\) and \(q = 2l + 1\) (odd primes):
Assume \(n = 2K\) is even at step \(m\). Then at step \(m+1\):
Valid for \(P_{>2} \subset O\). Both left-side and right-side proofs of the equation are even (Note: we already knew that both sides are equal but only needed to proof even), therefore satisfying.
For all integers \(n\), if \(n\) cannot be written as the sum of any two prime numbers, then \(n\) is an odd integer or \(n \le 2\).
Step 1: \(n = 3 \Rightarrow 1 + 2 = 3\) (1 and 2 are primes — Exception)
Step 2: \(n = 5 \Rightarrow 1 + 4 = 5\) (4 is not prime)
Step 3: \(n = 7 \Rightarrow 3 + 4 = 7\) (4 is not prime)
…
Step m: \(n \Rightarrow p + q = n\)
Step m+1: \(n + 2 \Rightarrow p + q = n + 2\)
Assume \(p = 2k + 1\) (odd) and \(q = 2l\) (even):
Assume \(n = 2K + 1\) (odd). Then at step \(m+1\):
Therefore, left-side and right-side proofs are both odd (Note: we already knew that both sides are equal but only needed to proof odd), therefore satisfying and valid for \(n > 3\).