For any Pythagorean triple, the number of primes under a + b + c mustby goldust Tags: number, primes, pythagorean, triple 

#1
Oct2913, 03:34 PM

P: 85

be no more than c? In fact, only for the first triple does equality hold. Upon examining some of the triples, I noticed this must be true. However, I'm having a hard time explaining why. Is there a good explanation for this? Many thanks!




#2
Oct2913, 04:25 PM

Mentor
P: 4,499

Since c is larger than a or b, you're basically saying the number of primes smaller than 3c is less than c... for c sufficiently large this is because the number of primes smaller than n is log(n). So the only worry would be that for c small you could have a counterexample and it just turns out there isn't one I guess. There might be a more solid reason but I would guess this is probably all that's happening.




#3
Oct3013, 03:12 AM

P: 1,351

lim n→∞ (pi(n) log (n)) / n = 1 where pi(n) is the number of primes smaller than n. (prime number theorem) You don't really need the prime number theorem here. If you only consider division by 2,3 and 5 it's easy to see that pi(n)< (8/30)n + 8 (because n mod 30 must be in {1,7,11,13,17,19,23,29}) 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Two primes in a Primitive Pythagorean Triangle  Linear & Abstract Algebra  4  
Primitive Pythagorean Triple  Linear & Abstract Algebra  8  
Pythagorean Primes and Gaussian Primes, divisibility question  Linear & Abstract Algebra  3  
proof of pythagorean triple  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  1  
triple primes  Calculus & Beyond Homework  24 