Are There Prime Factors of the Same Form for Integers of Form 3n+2?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ComputerGeek
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Prime
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether all integers of the form 3n+2 have a prime factor also of the form 3n+2. Participants explore various approaches to proving this, including proof by contradiction and considerations of prime factorization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests starting with integers of the form 3n+2 and testing different classes of integers, such as 2n and 4n+X, but finds these approaches unhelpful.
  • Another participant proposes using proof by contradiction to demonstrate the existence of a prime factor of the form 3n+2.
  • There is a suggestion to show that there are infinitely many primes of the form 3n+2.
  • A participant proposes an exhaustion proof by multiplying integers of the form 3n, 3n+1, and 3n+2 to show that only numbers with certain factors have a prime factor of the same form.
  • Another participant challenges this approach, providing a counterexample (15) and suggesting that a number with a prime factor of the form 3n+2 does not necessarily need to have another factor of that form.
  • One participant hints at the utility of modular arithmetic in discussing numbers of the form 3n+x.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of certain approaches and the necessity of additional factors for integers of the form 3n+2. There is no consensus on a definitive proof or method to establish the existence of prime factors of the same form.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve assumptions about the nature of integers and their prime factors, which may not be universally accepted or proven within the thread. The use of modular arithmetic is mentioned but not fully explored.

ComputerGeek
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
Any help would be appreciated. I need to show that for all integers of the form [tex]3n+2[/tex] there is a prime factor of the same form.

I know that integers of this form can be either even or odd depending on what class n falls into, so I thought a logical starting point would be to plug in [tex]2n[/tex] and [tex]2n+1[/tex]

that did not work out so well because 2n gave me factors of 2 and [tex]3n + 1[/tex]

I then tried it with the [tex]4n+X[/tex] class of numbers and achieved similar results.

what am I missing here?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try a proof by contradiction.
 
when you get that, try showing there is an infinite number of primes of form 3n+2.
 
shmoe said:
Try a proof by contradiction.
would that just prove the existence of an integer of the form 3n+2 with a prime factor 3n+2?
 
ComputerGeek said:
would that just prove the existence of an integer of the form 3n+2 with a prime factor 3n+2?

No, start with any integer of the form 3n+2. Assume it has no prime factors of the form 3m+2. Come to a contradiction.
 
I think I figured out a way:

let [tex]3n+2[/tex] be prime

then just multiply it with [tex]3n, 3n+1, 3n+2[/tex]

this shows that only numbers with a second factor(not necessarily a prime factor) of the form [tex]3n+1[/tex] or [tex]3n+2[/tex] has a prime factor of [tex]3n+2[/tex]

it is an exhaustion proof, but with such few considerations it is not to much work.
 
ComputerGeek said:
this shows that only numbers with a second factor(not necessarily a prime factor) of the form [tex]3n+1[/tex] or [tex]3n+2[/tex] has a prime factor of [tex]3n+2[/tex]

This isn't true. A number with a prime factor of the form 3n+2 doesn't have to have another factor of the form 3m+2 or one of 3m+1 either (15 is a counter example).


Did you try assuming that 3n+2 has no prime divisors of the form 3m+2? For another hint in this direction, what do you get when you multiply primes of the form 3k+1 together?


As an aside, I don't suppose you've learned modular arithmetic yet? Not necessary but it makes the language much nicer.
 
shmoe said:
As an aside, I don't suppose you've learned modular arithmetic yet? Not necessary but it makes the language much nicer.

so, say mod 3 when talking about numbers in the form 3n+x
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K