2

Theorem: There are infinitely many primes congruent to $3 \mod 4$.

Proof: Assume that $p_1 = 3, . . . , p_n$ are primes of the form $p_j ≡ 3 \mod 4$. We will construct a new one by looking at $N = 4p_1 · · · p_n − 1$ (putting $N = 4p_1 · · · p_n+3$ would also work).

There is more to this proof but the rest of it I understand, what I don't get is where it says "$N = 4p_1 · · · p_n − 1$ (putting $N = 4p_1 · · · p_n+3$ would also work)".

I do not understand why we are writing $4p_1 · · · p_n − 1$. Is there a more clear way to prove this theorem?

VIVID
  • 11,604
Zdravstvuyte94
  • 101
  • What is the Theorem? (I think one can figure it out by reading the proof, but you should really state it explicitly). – lulu Oct 22 '18 at 12:55
  • Please use Jax for readability. – Wuestenfux Oct 22 '18 at 12:55
  • And...what is your question? Can you see how writing that expression works? Granted, it might seem a little arbitrary but, really, it's just the classical proof for the infinitude of primes modified (slightly) to work in this case. – lulu Oct 22 '18 at 12:56
  • I edited in the theorem, my bad, and my question is that I don't understand the proof. I understand that P = a list of primes that are congruent to 3 mod 4, as we are saying there is a finite amount so we can prove by contradiction. But I dont get why we say N = 4p.... pn 3 – Zdravstvuyte94 Oct 22 '18 at 12:58
  • The point is, how do we contradict the statement : "there are finitely many primes of the form $4n+3$"? One way of doing it, is to show that if you write down this set as $p_1,...,p_m$, then there is some prime $p$ which is actually lying outside this set but is of the form $4m+3$. We want that prime $p$, to come out as the prime factor of a large number $N$, like it i done in the proof of the infinitude of primes by Euclid. Ideally, $N$ should be a number that is not a multiple of $p_1,...,p_n$ but must have a prime fact of the form $4n+3$ to give a contradiction. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Oct 22 '18 at 13:03
  • The further point is, every odd number is congruent to either $1$ or $3$ mod $4$, and the product of numbers congruent to $1$ is also congruent to $1$. So we construct a number congruent to $3$ mod $4$ that can't be divided by any of the primes $p_1, \ldots, p_m$, and it must be divisible by another such prime. – Robert Israel Oct 22 '18 at 13:07
  • That, in part, provides at least a guess for how such an $N$ can be produced : take the product of all supposed primes of the form $4n+3$, and maybe add/subtract $1$ or $3$, so that this number is now not divisible by any of the $p_i$. At least this much can be ensured. That $N$ must have a factor of the form $4n+3$ is something brilliantly falling out : you can call it luck or foresight, but it so happens beyond this point that this $N$ works (and some other one does not). – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Oct 22 '18 at 13:07
  • Ok, Thank you for the explanation really appreciate it. – Zdravstvuyte94 Oct 22 '18 at 13:08
  • Do you want me to copy paste my comments into an answer? If not, please do that yourself and close this question, since the answer has been completed. – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer Oct 22 '18 at 13:10
  • if you could do that I will mark it as solution – Zdravstvuyte94 Oct 22 '18 at 13:12

1 Answers1

5

The key ideas (colored below) are clarified after a slight amount of abstraction. Below we prove a lemma that includes both Euclid's classical proof, as well as the OP (and many others).

Lemma $\ $ Suppose $\,S\,$ is a set of positive integers that is $\rm\color{#0a0}{closed}$ under multiplication, and $\,\color{#c00}{\bf 1}\in S,\,$ and for any $\,n\in \Bbb N\,$ there exists a positive integer $\,c(n)\color{#0af}{\not\in S}\,$ with $\,c(n)\,$ $\rm\color{#90f}{coprime}$ to $\,n.\,$ Then there exist infinitely many primes not in $\,S.$

Proof $\ $ For induction, let $\,p_1,\ldots p_k\,$ be primes $\,\not\in S.\,$ Then $\,c := c(p_1\!\cdots p_k)\color{#0af}{\not\in S}\,$ so $\,c >\color{#c00}{\bf 1}\,$ hence $\,c\,$ has a prime factor. Not every prime factor of $\,c\,$ lies in $\,S\,$ (else their product $\,c\,$ would be in $\,S\,$ by $\,S\,$ $\rm\color{#0a0}{closed}$ under multiplication). Thus $\,c\,$ has a prime factor $\,p\not\in S.\,$ Since $\,c\,$ is $\rm\color{#90f}{coprime}$ to $\,p_1\cdots p_k\,$ so too is its factor $\,p,\,$ hence $\,p\neq p_i\,$ is a new prime $\not\in S.$

Euclid's proof is the special case $\ S = \{1\}\ $ and $\,\ c(n) = n+1.$

The OP is also a special case: $\, S = 4\,\Bbb N + 1\,$ and $\,c(n) = 4n\!-\!1.\ $ Let's trace this particular proof.

Starting with the empty list of primes with product $= \color{#c00}{\bf 1},$ we construct the new prime

$ 4(\ \ )-1 = 4(\color{#c00}{\bf 1})-1 = 3 =: p_1.\ $ Repeating with the singleton list $\, p_1\,$ leads to

$4(p_1)\!-\!1 = 4(3)\!-\!1 = 11 =: p_2.\ $ Repeating with the list $\, p_1,p_2\,$ leads to

$4(p_1p_2 )-1 = 4(3\cdot 11)-1 = 131 =: p_3.\ $

They remain prime $\ 3, 11, 131, 17291, 298995971 \ $ till we reach the sixth element

$$ n = 89398590973228811 = 8779\cdot 10079\cdot 1010341471$$

where we need to choose a (guaranteed) factor $\,\not \equiv 1\pmod{4},\,$ e.g. the least $= 8779$.

You can find further terms in OEIS sequence A057205

If we use $\,c(n) = 4n\!+\!3\,$ we obtain $\, 7,31,13,11287,67,\ldots$ (choosing least prime factors)

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048