Open Letter to the Scientific Community:

Proposal made by: Rodolfo A. Nieves Rivas.

E-mail: fesol7luzley@gmail.com

The purpose of this letter is to propose to those who love scientific challenges to take a
little of their free time to: review, make comments, prove, criticize or refute; The following
conclusions I have reached whose main purpose is to proof which of these four options is
correct:

Options:
1) Are both proofs correct?
2) Is correct the First and the second one is not?
3) Is it wrong the first and the second one correct?
4) Both are wrong?
First Proof:
Epistolary Proof:

Nieves criterion:
The necessary and sufficient condition for letting P = NP be
It also is: co-NP = P

Second Proof:
Proof of Polignacs Conjecture:
-Polignacs Conjecture.
-Corollary: 1 (Twin primesConjecture).
-Lemma: 1 (Dirichlets Theorem)
-Lemma: 2 (Bertrand's postulate)
-Lemma: 3 (Proof of Euclid about the infinitude of primes)
-Lemma: 4 Every odd prime number is relatively prime to the Two.
Analogous Theorem to Polignacs Conjecture:
There are infinitely many prime numbers odd: b
To all: n Constant and greater and equal one.
When: a.n + b is also a prime number
If a is equal to two.
Proof of the Analogous Theorem:
Since any odd prime number b: is relatively prime to: a
Because: (a, b) = 1 (By Lemma: 4)
And as there are infinitely many primes of the form: a.n + b (By Lemma: 1)
Because: There is always at least one prime number included
Between: 2.n + b
And: 4.n + 2.b (By Lemma 2)
And as the prime numbers: b are infinite. (By Lemma: 3)
Then: The analogous theorem is true
And therefore Polignac's conjecture is also true.
And since the analogous Theorem is also true for n = 1
Then: The twin primes are infinite.