Number Theory-limitation of Pn

  • Thread starter Thread starter icystrike
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a statement related to Euclid's proof concerning the properties of prime numbers, specifically the inequality involving the product of the first n primes and the next prime. Participants are exploring the implications of this inequality in the context of number theory.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to understand the relationship between the primes and the inequality presented. Some are questioning the assumptions behind the inequality and its connection to Euclid's proof regarding the infinitude of primes. Others are exploring the implications of the inequality through inductive reasoning and properties of prime numbers.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with various interpretations of the inequality being explored. Some participants have offered insights into the nature of primes and their relationships, while others are seeking clarification on the original statement and its implications. There is no explicit consensus yet, but the discussion is productive.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original statement may lack clarity regarding the conditions under which the inequality holds. There are also discussions about the nature of the primes involved and the assumptions that underpin the proof being sought.

icystrike
Messages
444
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



This is part of Euclid's proof such that he says:
1)

[tex]P_{n+1}[/tex] smaller or equal to [tex]P_{1}[/tex][tex]P_{2}[/tex]...[tex]P_{n}[/tex] +1
Such that p_n is to denote some prime
I am wondering if anyone could provide me with an elegant prove to the above inequality as i am new to number theory.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Homework Statement


Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Homework Statement


Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
icystrike said:

Homework Statement



This is part of Euclid's proof such that he says:
1)

[tex]p_{n+1}[/tex] smaller or equal to [tex]p_{1}[/tex][tex]p_{2}[/tex]...[tex]p_{n}[/tex]+1
Such that p_n is to denote some prime
I am wondering if anyone could provide me with an elegant prove to the above inequality as i am new to number theory.
That is part of Euclid's proof of what? The "[itex]p_1p_2\cdot\cdot\cdot p_n+ 1[/itex]" reminds me of Euclides proof that there are an infinite number of primes but he never asserts that [itex]p_{n+1}[/itex] is smaller than or equal to that.

It does, of course, follow from Euclid's proof. Assuming that [itex]p_1[/itex], [itex]p_2[/itex], ..., [itex]p_n[/itex] is a list of all primes less than or equal to [itex]p_n[/itex], [itex]p_1p_2\cdot\cdot\cdot p_n+ 1[/itex] is certainly not divisible by any of [itex]p_1[/itex], [itex]p_2[/itex], ..., [itex]p_n[/itex]. Therefore it is either a prime itself or is divisible by a prime larger than any of [itex]p_1[/itex], [itex]p_2[/itex], ..., [itex]p_n[/itex]. In either case there must be a prime less than or equal to [itex]p_1p_2\cdot\cdot\cdot p_n+ 1[/itex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
icystrike said:

Homework Statement



This is part of Euclid's proof such that he says:
1)

[tex]p_{n+1}[/tex] smaller or equal to [tex]p_{1}[/tex][tex]p_{2}[/tex]...[tex]p_{n}[/tex]+1
Such that p_n is to denote some prime
I am wondering if anyone could provide me with an elegant prove to the above inequality as i am new to number theory.

It is not very elegant but the proof follows from the principles of order on the real number field.

Considering positive primes: given [tex]p_{1} < p_{2}[/tex], then it follows that [tex]p_{1} < p_{1}^2 < p_{1} \cdot p_{2}[/tex], by inductive reasoning you can prove that [tex]p_{n+1}<p_{n+1} \cdot p_{1} < p_{n+1} \cdot p_{1} \cdot p_{2}[/tex], and so on.
 
Am I understanding the question right? It seems to come quite simply by noting that the primes are larger than 1. We can even omit the equality option of the inequality at a glance.
 
Thank you for all your replies (=

I think I'm able to understand the concept.
Please tell me your opinions on my proof below.Let [tex]P_{1}[/tex][tex]P_{2}[/tex]...[tex]P_{n}[/tex] +1 =N
Such that N is an element of positive integer.
Thus, it suggest N is co-prime to [tex]P_{1}[/tex],[tex]P_{2}[/tex], ... ,[tex]P_{n}[/tex]Which may be a prime number that is [tex]P_{k}[/tex]
Such that k is a value larger or equal to n+1 OR

It may be a composite number that is larger than [tex]P_{n+1}[/tex] as the smallest possible divisor of N should be [tex]P_{n+1}[/tex] . Noting N is co-prime to [tex]P_{1}[/tex],[tex]P_{2}[/tex], ... ,[tex]P_{n}[/tex] .
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K