Is Every Prime > 3 a Sum of a Prime and a Power of Two?

  • Thread starter Thread starter al-mahed
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conjecture
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the conjecture that every prime number greater than 3 can be expressed as the sum of another prime and a power of two, formulated as p = q + 2^n, where p and q are primes and n is a positive integer. Examples provided illustrate this relationship for various primes, although exceptions exist, such as 997 and 6659, which cannot be represented in this form. Participants explore the potential for an algorithm to automate the identification of such representations and discuss the implications of these findings on the distribution of primes. The conversation also touches on the connection to Goldbach's conjecture and the infinite nature of primes that can be expressed in this way. Overall, the thread highlights ongoing curiosity and investigation into the properties of prime numbers and their relationships with powers of two.
  • #91
al-mahed said:
there also a kind of pathern to 11 when the values of k goes from +10, +20, +10, +20

and 7 goes from +6, +6, +6, ...

Every tenth one should be divisible by 11 (again, this is true because you're working mod 11 and the order of 2 mod 11 is 10). The ones that look like they're skipped just have other small factors.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
al-mahed said:
you mean as p will never be 3 (must be at least 5 because k > 0)??

still not very clear to me

p is a prime, so 3 doesn't divide p (unless p = 3, but I said p > 3 to exclude that). Thus either 3 divides p - 1 or 3 divides p - 2. But 3 never divides 2^k (obviously), so 2^k is always 1 or 2 mod 3. In fact it alternates, giving you that pattern.
 
  • #93
al-mahed said:
see http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A067760

a(n) = least positive k such that (2n+1)+2^k is prime.

COMMENT Does a(1065) exist? (Is 2131+2^k composite for all positive k?)

I mentioned A067760 in my PDF already.

In the update I send to Dr. Sloane yesterday, I said that 2131 + 2^k is not prime for 1 <= k <= 1,000,000.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
al-mahed said:
you made a nice work here, this is all what matters! congrats, CGR4

Thanks!

al-mahed said:
could you state, in a later moment, the exactly densitiy of counterexamples?

you said n/(11511227035838054400 log n) but from where you put 11511227035838054400?

I don't know the exact density of the counterexamples. I made a rough guess (based on working mod 18446744073709551615 and a bunch of other things) about how many counterexamples there would be of one particular form, but I don't know that there aren't others.

The counterexample I found has 20 digits. I guessed that there would be a counterexample of at most 21 digits, which seems pretty good. I checked that there are no counterexamples with less than 5 digits. So the smallest counterexample has 5 to 20 digits.

Direct checking is hard, but will probably show that there are no 5 digit counterexamples. If I continued, I'd probably find a 6 or 7 digit number that I won't be able to easily show to be a counterexample or not a counterexample.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K