5

The proofs given on other sites weren't that clear and used different methods that I have yet to learn.


Prove that there are an infinite number of primes of the form 6n+1.

The hint that was given was: Let p = p1, p2, ..., pk + 1, where p1 = 2, p2 = 3,...pk are the first k primes. Show that p is prime.

(p1 means p sub 1, p2 means p sub 2, and pk is p sub k. Wasn't sure how to write it on this.)


Can someone explain this hint on how they came about of p1 = 2, p2=3, etc, and prove this please?

Also, how would the proof change if the form changed? ("Prove that there are infinite number of primes of the form....")


enter image description here enter image description here

mshell47812
  • 53
  • 1
  • 1
  • 4
  • If the hint means a product of primes plus $1$, it is wrong: if you take the first $6$ primes you get $2\times3\times5\times7\times11\times13+1=30031$, which is $59\times509$. – David Feb 11 '14 at 03:48
  • I noticed that as well, but wasn't sure if they continued taking primes. How would I prove this if I didn't use the hint? – mshell47812 Feb 11 '14 at 03:50
  • 1
    Are you sure it is not $6n-1$. The hint is often used to prove for $6n-1$. I can provide a simple proof for that, if you want. Not sure how to use the hint for $6n+1$ – user44197 Feb 11 '14 at 03:52
  • There is a result (Dirichlet's Theorem) which says that there are always infinitely many primes of the form $an+b$, as long as $a$ and $b$ have no common factor. However this is a very difficult result and I doubt it's what you're looking for. There are simple proofs for certain cases, such as $4n-1$ and $6n-1$, and $4n+1$ is a bit harder but not too hard. – David Feb 11 '14 at 03:55
  • I added a picture of what I am looking at. However, how would the proof look like if it were 6n-1? Maybe I can get an idea if I looked at it. – mshell47812 Feb 11 '14 at 04:03
  • See my answer below for $6n-1$. – user44197 Feb 11 '14 at 04:13

5 Answers5

7

Hint is clearly false. Let me answer a question that was not asked as it used the hint that is provided. I realize that this does not help OP but hopefully it will help the OP in some other problem.

Show that there are infinitely many primes of the form $6n-1$

Suppose not. Let there be only finitely many primes of the form $6n-1$, say $p_1$, $p_2$ $\cdots$, $p_k$. Let $$ P = 6 p_1 p_2 p_3 \cdots p_k - 1 $$ Now every prime is either of the form $6n-1$ or $6n+1$ and product of any two numbers of the form $6n+1$ is also of the form $6n+1$. So the question is

What are the prime dividers of $P$?

They all can't be of the form $6n+1$ since $P$ is of the form $6n -1$. So it must have at least one prime factor of the form $6n-1$. Clearly $p$ is not divisible by any of the primes $p_1$, $p_2$, $\cdots$ $p_k$. So there has to be a prime of the form $6n-1$ which is different from these primes. Hence, there has to be infinitely many primes of the form $6n-1$.

I fully realize that this does not answer OP's question but the method and the hint is similar. Hope this helps

giorgio
  • 409
  • 1
  • 8
user44197
  • 9,730
  • Very helpful thank you. I have one more question. If I had a whole new question to where the form changed, to say what David mentioned about to 4n-1, would the proof be similar to this? – mshell47812 Feb 11 '14 at 04:27
  • Same logic. Product of two numbers of the form $4n+1$ is also of the same form. So, consider $P=4 p_1 p_2 p_3 \cdots p_k - 1$. Now $P$ must have a factor of the form $4n-1$ that is different than $p_1$, $p_2$ ... $p_k$. – user44197 Feb 11 '14 at 04:29
  • Sounds great. Quick question I just thought about. What if I had the form of other than +/- 1? Say, 6n+5? Would the proof be for P= 6p_1 p_2...p_k+5? – mshell47812 Feb 11 '14 at 04:32
  • 6n+5 is same as 6n-1. The key is that numbers of the form $4n+1$ and $6n+1$ are closed under multiplication, so if you from a number that is not in that form, that number must have a factor not in that form. $4$ and $6$ are nice because $\phi(4)=\phi(6)=2$, so every number greater than $4$ or $6$ that is not of the form $4n\pm1$ and $6n\pm1$ is a composite number. – user44197 Feb 11 '14 at 04:37
  • Ah, okay, I see. Many thanks for all the help! – mshell47812 Feb 11 '14 at 04:45
4

Make a list of (supposedly) all the primes, then write the product $$ Q = p_1 p_2 p_3 \cdots p_k, $$ and write $$ N = 12 Q^2 + 1. $$

You need to know how to prove this much: if we have a prime $q \equiv 5 \pmod 6,$ and $$ 3 u^2 + v^2 \equiv 0 \pmod q, $$ then both $$ u,v \equiv 0 \pmod q. $$

Proved the general fact at Prime divisors of $k^2+(k+1)^2$

Will Jagy
  • 139,541
2

This is a direct conclusion of Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions.

Or you can prove it directly, but it takes more work. Here's a proof from MATHBLAG:

Let P be a finite set of primes of the form $6k + 1$, and let N be a number that is divisible by every number in P. Assume that N is also divisible by 6. Let p be a prime divisor of $N^2-N+1$.

Note that $(N^2-N+1)(N+1)=N^3+1$. so p divides $N^3+1$, or in other words $N^3 \equiv -1 \pmod{p}$ and so $N^6 \equiv 1 \pmod{p}$.

Recall that the order of N modulo p is the least positive k so that $N^k \equiv 1 \pmod{p}$. The order must divide 6. so k = 1, 2, 3, or 6. But $N^3 \equiv -1 \pmod{p}$, so the order cannot be 1 or 3.

Can the order be 2? If $N^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{p}$ and $N^3 \equiv -1 \pmod{p}$ then $N \equiv -1 \pmod{p}$. This would be bad, because then p would divide both $N+1$ and $N^2-N+1$; but $\gcd(N+1,N^2-N+1) = \gcd(N+1,3) < p$, contradiction.

Thus N has order 6 mod p, and the group of units mod p has order $p-1$, so 6 divides $p-1$, which means that p has the form $6k+1$. Therefore, P does not contain all primes of the form $6k+1$, so the set of primes of this form is infinite.

Mygod
  • 159
1

let there are finite number primes in the form $6n-1$ Let they all are $S=\{p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5.....p_n\}$. Let a number $Q=6(p_1*p_2*p_3*p_4.......p_n)-1$. Either Q is prime or composite. If Q is prime we are done. Since Q is in form 6n-1 and not in S.(Contradiction) If p is composite then there must be a prime let M (not in S) which is a factor of Q. We know M must be in the form 6n-1 or 6n+1. so Q=Mq for some q. If m is in form 6n-1 then this contradicts our supposition. If M is in the form 6n+1 then our left-hand side is congruent to 5 mod6 but the right-hand side is congruent to 1 mod 6 which is not possible, and we are done.

0

If we cross out from sequence of positive integers all numbers divisible by $2 $ and all numbers divisible by $3$ then all remaining numbers will be in one of two forms:

$S1(n)=6n−1=5,11,17,..$ or $S2(n)=6n+1=7,13,19,....n=1,2,3,...$

So all prime numbers also will be in one of these two forms and ratio 0f number of primes in the sequence $S1(n)$ to number of primes in the sequence $S2(n)$ tends to be $1$. See link http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=13752&lngWId=3