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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter al-mahed
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conjecture
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conjecture that every prime number greater than 3 can be expressed as a sum of a prime number and a power of two. Participants explore various examples, counterexamples, and the implications of this conjecture, touching on both theoretical and computational aspects.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that every prime number greater than 3 can be expressed as a sum of a prime and a power of two, providing several examples to support this claim.
  • Others point out specific primes, such as 997 and 6659, that do not fit this pattern, suggesting the need for a property to identify such exceptions.
  • A participant shares a method using Mathematica to check the conjecture, demonstrating its effectiveness in finding representations for various primes.
  • There is a suggestion to develop an algorithm that expresses a prime as a sum of the smallest possible prime and powers of two, with the aim of uncovering patterns in prime distribution.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of the conjecture in relation to Goldbach's conjecture and express curiosity about the existence of a proof for the conjecture.
  • References to sequences of primes that cannot be represented in this way are provided, along with statistics on the number of such primes compared to the total number of primes.
  • There is a debate about the validity of using computational results to infer properties about infinite sets of primes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the conjecture. While some support the idea that most primes can be represented as proposed, others highlight specific exceptions and question the generality of the claim. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of a proof or a definitive characterization of the primes that cannot be expressed in this form.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the conjecture may depend on the properties of primes and powers of two, and there are unresolved questions about the distribution of such primes. The discussion includes computational findings but does not reach a consensus on the implications for infinite sets of primes.

  • #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
3K
  • · 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
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K