Are Primes of the Form 4n+1 Infinite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tamalkuila
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Primes
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the infinitude of primes of the form 4n+1. A user has successfully demonstrated that primes of the form 4n+3 are infinite but struggles to prove the same for 4n+1. The proof presented utilizes an indirect approach by contradiction, leveraging Euler's Criterion for Quadratic Residues to establish that if there were only a finite number of such primes, a contradiction arises. The conclusion is that there are indeed infinitely many primes of the form 4n+1.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of prime numbers and their classifications
  • Familiarity with modular arithmetic
  • Knowledge of Euler's Criterion for Quadratic Residues
  • Basic concepts of proof by contradiction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of Euler's Criterion for Quadratic Residues in detail
  • Explore the properties of primes in different forms, particularly 4n+1 and 4n+3
  • Investigate other proofs of the infinitude of primes, such as Euclid's proof
  • Examine the implications of prime distribution in number theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, number theorists, and students interested in prime number theory and proofs of infinitude in mathematics.

tamalkuila
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have proved the primes of the order 4n+3 are infiinite but can not prove that primes of the form 4n+1 are infinite.please help


prove that primes of the form 4n+1 are infinite.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
are you trying to do:
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 4(n+1)=\infty
 
Are you saying that an expression:
4n+3 = p

will produce a prime for every value of n?

Because this is definitely not right. Here are a few counters:
n = 3
p = 15 (not prime)

n = 6
p = 27 (not prime)

.
.
.
n = 1001
p = 4011 (not prime) ... divides by 3


Or, are you just saying that there is an infinite amount of primes that exist in the form 4n+3 = p. ie:
n = 4
p = 11
Thus p is prime in the form (4n+3) and there exists an infinite amount of these primes.

Actually this is probably exactly what you are saying. So, how about you give some type of work on how you think you should solve your latter question. Or, how did prove the first form?
 
p53ud0 dr34m5 said:
are you trying to do:
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 4(n+1)=\infty

Why would you think that? That's obviously true.

FrogPad said:
Are you saying that an expression:
p= 4n+3 will produce a prime for every value of n?

No, he didn't say anything of the kind. I don't see how you could interpret what he did say that way.

What he said was that he can prove "the set of all primes of the form 4n+3 is infinite" or, equivalently "there exist an infinite number of primes that are of the form 4n+3". Not that all numbers of the form 4n+3 are prime, but that an infinite number of them are.

What he is asking about is how to prove "the set of all primes of the form 4n+1 is infinite" or, equivalently "there exist an infinite number of primes that are of the form 4n+1".
 
tamalkuila said:
I have proved the primes of the order 4n+3 are infiinite but can not prove that primes of the form 4n+1 are infinite.please help


prove that primes of the form 4n+1 are infinite.

Well Tamalkuila, I have two questions but don't want to get you off track so please do as you wish and I won't take offense:

(1) Care to share with us the proof for primes of the form 4n+3 are infinite?

(2) I'm very curious about this one: Has anyone proven that there are primes of a particular form that ARE NOT infinite in number? If so, can you or someone else give me an example?
 
tamalkuila said:
I have proved the primes of the order 4n+3 are infiinite but can not prove that primes of the form 4n+1 are infinite.please help


prove that primes of the form 4n+1 are infinite.
This is an indirect proof by contradiction. We first presume that only a finite number "R" of primes have form (4*nj + 1), where {nj, j=1,2,3,...,R, ∈ Integers}. We define integer "Q" with the following, where the product is over all "R" primes of form (4*nj + 1):

1: \ \ \ \ Q \ = \ \prod_{j = 1}^{R} \, (4n_{j}+1)

Now consider the integer "T" defined by the following:

2: \ \ \ \ T \ = \ 1 + Q^{2} \ = \ 1 \ + \ \left ( \prod_{j = 1}^{R} \, (4n_{j}+1) \right )^{\displaystyle 2}

There exists an odd prime "P" which divides "T", so that:

3: \ \ \ \, (1 + Q^{2}) \ \cong \ 0 \mod(P)

4: \ \ \ \ \Longrightarrow \ \ Q^{2} \ \cong \ -1 \mod(P)

Since "P" is an odd prime and gcd{P,(-1)}=(1), Eq #4 implies that (-1) is a Quadratic Residue of "P". Thus, Euler's Criterion applies:

5: \ \ \ \ (-1)^{(P - 1)/2} \ \cong \ 1 \mod(P)

Eq #5 is only true if {(P - 1)/2} is even. All odd primes have either the form (4*n + 1) or (4*n + 3). Thus, this odd prime "P" must have the form (4*n + 1) to make {(P - 1)/2} even. Hence, by Eq #1's definition of "Q", this prime "P" of form (4*n + 1) must divide "Q".

However, by definition, this "P" also divides T=(1 + Q2):

6: \ \ \ \ P \ \textsf{\color{blue}divides} \ \left \{<br /> \begin{array}{c}<br /> Q \\<br /> \textsf{and} \\<br /> 1 + Q^{2} \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right \} \ \ \Longrightarrow \ \ P \textsf{ \color{blue} divides } (1) \ \ \textsf{ \color{red} \LARGE ***\underline{CONTRADICTION}*** }

Thus, the original presumption of only a finite number of (4*n + 1) primes is NOT correct.
Q.E.D.

(Note: Above proof utilized Euler's Criterion for Quadratic Residues. This theorem's proof can be found at the Web Site shown below.)
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ProofOfEulersCriterion.html

~~
 
Last edited by a moderator:
halls:
Yeah, I started typing a reply and then half way through I realized that what I was typing didn't make any sense. I should have just removed the first half of my post... however, the post was not "precise". There WAS room for interpretation. I definitely interpretted it wrong. Your response however was 100% clear. Anyways, seems xanthym cleared it up...
 
saltydog said:
(2) I'm very curious about this one: Has anyone proven that there are primes of a particular form that ARE NOT infinite in number? If so, can you or someone else give me an example?
p=2n~,~~ n~ \epsilon~ \mathbb{N} :wink:
 
Gokul43201 said:
p=2n~,~~ n~ \epsilon~ \mathbb{N} :wink:

Yea, 2. Figured someone might bring that up. Thanks. How about another relation concerning the set of primes of a particular form? I suspect there is not a single one that is "finite" Got any?
 
  • #10
Hey, no need to get upset. That was just a joke (see the winking guy ?)...albeit a poor one.

Here's another cheat : the set of all primes that can not be written as the sum of two or more primes.

With that, I'll stop being an annoying pest. :biggrin:
 
  • #11
Gokul43201 said:
Hey, no need to get upset. That was just a joke (see the winking guy ?)...albeit a poor one.

Here's another cheat : the set of all primes that can not be written as the sum of two or more primes.

With that, I'll stop being an annoying pest. :biggrin:

Alright, I was wrong. You're right. I dare not ask for another one. Thanks. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K