Are All Prime Numbers Expressible as 6n ± 1?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on whether all prime numbers (except 2 and 3) can be expressed in the form of 6n ± 1, exploring the implications of this expression within the context of number theory. Participants examine the validity of this claim and seek proofs or counterexamples, engaging in both mathematical reasoning and conceptual clarification.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that all primes except 2 and 3 can be expressed as 6n ± 1, questioning if there is a proof for this assertion.
  • Another participant challenges the initial claim by suggesting that not all numbers of the form 6n ± 1 are prime, providing examples of numbers that fit this form but are not prime.
  • Several participants discuss the implications of expressing numbers in the form 6n + r, where r can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, concluding that only 6n + 1 and 6n + 5 can potentially be prime.
  • There is confusion regarding the notation and terminology used, with participants seeking clarification on the meaning of "result" and the significance of divisibility by 5.
  • A later reply suggests that every prime number greater than 3 must be congruent to either 1 or 5 modulo 6, which aligns with the earlier claims about the forms of prime numbers.
  • Another participant emphasizes that while primes can be expressed as 6n ± 1, this does not imply that every number of this form is prime.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the proof of the original claim and seek further clarification on the conditions under which primes can be expressed in the proposed forms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that primes greater than 3 can be expressed as 6n ± 1, but there is no consensus on whether this expression applies to all primes or if there are exceptions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the proof of the original claim and the implications of the findings.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding mathematical terminology and notation, which affects the clarity of the discussion. There are also unresolved questions about the implications of divisibility by 5 and the conditions under which numbers can be classified as prime.

JonF
Messages
621
Reaction score
1
I was told that all prime numbers (except 2 and 3) could be expressed as 6n +- 1 as long as the result divided by 5 is not another integer.

Is this true? Is there a proof for this (hopefully if possible not going much beyond basic calc, I am only in calc 1).
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Try writing down the first prime after 2,3,5,7, and the third prime after 7, and, oh, many others. Although I@m not sure what you mean when you refer to 'result'
 
6(0)+1=1
2 and 3 don't count for some reason.
6(1)-1=5
6(1)+1=7
6(2)-1=11
6(2)+1=13
6(3)-1=17
6(3)+1=19
6(4)-1=23
6(4)+1=25 but 25/5=5 (the result divided by 5 equals an integer)
6(5)-1=29
6(5)+1=31
6(6)-1=35 but 35/5=7 (the result divided by 5 equals an integer)
6(6)+1=37


I couldn’t think of any primes between 1-37 not in that list, so it appeared at my first glance that:
Where n is an integer if (6n+-1)/5=non integer, then n is prime.

I have no idea how to look into this more than picking random primes I know of and seeing if they can be expressed that way…
 
Last edited:
Ah! On my fonts it looks like 6n+1, not, as I now see in your examples, 6n+/-1.

Ok, ever number is of the form 6n, 6n+1, 6n+2, 6n+3 6n+4, or 6n+5 for some n. As long as n is bigger than 1 (or we get the degenerate cases of 2, 3 and 5) all but 6n+1 and 6n+5 (ie 6m-1) are divisible by 2 or 3 and cannot be prime.
 
Last edited:
Um it maybe me, but I have no clue what that post means… please help?
 
The result you asked states: if p is a prime not equal to 2 or 3 (or 5), it can be written as p=6n+/-1 for some n in N.

Firstly, this does not state anything about whether n is prime or not, nor does it state every number of the form 6n+/-1 is prime.

Let p be any number greater than or equal to 7, then write p as 6n+r, where r is one of 0,1,2,3,4,5. n is at least 1. This can be done, and you were doing it all the time until you learned about fractions and decimals which are just evil.

6n+2 = 2(3n+1) so nothing of this form can be prime

6n+3 = 3(2n+1) so nothing like that can be prime

6n+4 =2(3n+2) so that can't be prime

obviously numbers of the form 6n aren't prime as they're divisible by 6.

so the only chance p has of being prime is if it is 6n+1 or 6n+5. 6n+5 = 6(n+1)-1.

Not every number of this form is prime:

121 is divisible by 11 and is of the form 6*20+1I stil don't know what the 'result' and divisible by 5 means.
 
Last edited:
The result I’m talking about is 6n+/-1

What I do not get about what you are doing is why are you increasing the +/-1? The +/-1 is a constant. And in a pervious post you had an M variable what is that for?

You answered half my question though, everything that satisfies if 6n+-1/5 =non integer then it isn’t necessary prime.

But can call prime numbers be express as 6n+/-1?
 
How about a statement along the lines "every prime except 2 and 3 is congruent to 1 or 5 mod 6?"

Edit: notation.

cookiemonster
 
I think I got the mix up now, I’m not very good at all this math terminology, please forgive me.

N isn’t the prime number. I was told that all primes can be expressed as: P=6n+/-1. Where p is the prime, and n can be any integer.

My question is: Is this true? And if it is, is there a proof for it?
 
  • #10
You wanted to know if every prime except for 2 or 3 is expressible as 6n+/-1. By considering all possible expressions of 6n+r, I showed that the only ones where the number 6n+r is prime is for r equal to 1 or 5 (with the exception of those small cases). Thus as every number is expressible as 6n+r for r equal to 0,1,2,3,4,5, then the only possibility for a prime is 1 or 5.

The m is n+1, because then 6n+5=6m-1 and it is in the form you wanted originally.

In short I proved exactly what the result you gave states, that every number that is prime (and not 2 or 3) is of the form 6n+/1 for some n.
 
  • #11
Thank you, and I appreciated your bearing with my confusing way of saying things.
 
  • #12
Re looking over things I see that you proved 6n+1 or 6n+5 are the only possible 6n+something combinations (except for the ones that are just adding multiples of 6) that can be prime? But is there any way to prove that 6n+-1 is a way that all primes can be expressed?
 
  • #13
Yes. The reason appeared earlier in the middle of a paragraph; here it is on its own.Let p be *any* number. Then there is a unique n with p=6n+r where r is one of 0,1,2,3,4,5 and also unique. Any number on division by 6 has a remainder one of those numbers. n is the largest number such that 6n is less than or equal to p. Now if p is also a prime number (not 2 or 3), then we showed that the remainder can't be one of 2,3,4 or 0. So it must be that for any prime there is some n with p=6n+1 or 6n+5 = 6(n+1)-1. And is of the form you wanted.
 
  • #14
thanks, got it now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K