Algebra question involving prime numbers

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the next prime number, pn+1, is less than or equal to the product of all previous prime numbers plus one, expressed as pn+1 ≤ p1p2...pn + 1. The proof begins by assuming the contrary and defining a number N as the product of all primes plus one. This leads to a contradiction because N must have a prime factor that is not among the initial primes listed, indicating that there are infinitely many primes. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the implications of prime factors and their relationships to the defined sequence of primes. The participants clarify the proof steps, reinforcing the conclusion that pn+1 must indeed be less than or equal to the product of the previous primes plus one.
Darkiekurdo
Messages
111
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let the prime numbers, in order of magnitude, be p1, p2 ... Prove that pn+1 ≤ p1p2...pn + 1

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I have no idea how to start. I think it involves reductio ad absurdum.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Look up Euclid's proof that there are an infinite number of primes. You can adapt it directly.
 
Okay. So we want to show that there are infinitely many prime numbers. Let's assume that there are only a finity amount of prime numbers which we'll label as p1, p2, ..., pn.

Now let's consider some number, N, which is obtained by multiplying all prime numbers and adding 1:

N = p1p2 ... pn + 1.

N must have a prime factor. This prime factor must be one of p1, p2, ..., pn, because they are all the prime numbers. But this causes a contradiction since N leaves a remainder of 1 when divided by any of the prime numbers.

Conclusion: there are infinitely many prime numbers.

----

Now let's go to our problem: we want to show that pn+1 ≤ p1p2 ... pn + 1.

Let's assume it is false, so: pn+1 ≥ p1p2 ... pn + 1.

Now consider the number N ≥ p1p2 ... pn + 1 where N = pn+1.

This number must have a prime factor, so we will have to divide by a prime number which is one of p1, p2, ..., pn.

But we can't do this because this leaves a remainder of 1, which leads to a contradiction.Is it something like this? Sorry for the long post but this way I can summarise everything up for myself.
 
You're off to a good start. But the end is a little muddled. Call M=(p1p2...pn)+1. M has a prime factor, call it p, that is NOT one of the p1...pn. Good so far. Since p=pj for some j, it must be that j>n. Ok so far? Since you are listing the primes in ascending order it follows that p=pj>=pn+1. Since p is a factor of M, p<=M. So pn+1<=p<=M.
 
What is pj, a prime number? And why does it follow that j>n?
 
Darkiekurdo said:
Now consider the number N ≥ p1p2 ... pn + 1 where N = pn+1.

This number must have a prime factor …

Hi Darkiekurdo! :smile:

No … N = pn+1 is prime, isn't it (it's the next prime after pn)? :redface:

You need to consider N - 1. :smile:
 
Darkiekurdo said:
What is pj, a prime number? And why does it follow that j>n?

Read what I wrote carefully. pj is a prime number that divides M. It's not one of p1...pn. So j>n.
 
Ah I see it now. Thanks to the both of you!
 
Back
Top