1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

*p>n? set prime

  1. Sep 19, 2004 #1
    is it true that for any set S:={1,....,n}

    2*p>n , where p is the largest prime in S?

    Thanks in advance :biggrin:
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 19, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    lets try it. {1} does not seem to work. {1,2} ok

    {1,2,3,4} ok,

    it looks likely from now on, but why don't we use the theorem behind "mills constant"? (I just heard of this today, on this site.)

    i.e. there is a constant K such that for any prime p, the next prime is closer than K p^(5/8), in particular it is closer than Kp.

    so once p gets larger than K, we have that the next prime is closer than p^2.

    hence the next prime is smaller than p+p^2 = p(1+p), which is a lot smaller than 2^p. so this says that in any sequence of integers, {1,2,....,p,....,n} where p is the alrgest prime, then n is smaller than the next larger prime hence n is smaller than 2^p. so this is certainly true eventually, i.e. for large n.

    but it is probably easy to prove it is always true. i just do not see it right now.
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2004
  4. Sep 20, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    If you mean something like {1,2,....n} then it's true for n>1. What comes to mind immediately is IIRC Bertrand's Postulate which indicates that for any [tex]m \in \mathbb{N}[/tex], there is a prime [tex]p[/tex] with [tex]m \leq p \leq 2m[/tex] , and since [tex]2^{\frac{n}{2}}>n[/tex] for n sufficiently large.
  5. Sep 20, 2004 #4
    i think this problem might relate to the matter of whether there is always a prime between any positive integer X in the interval X^2 and (X+1)^2. Call such a prime, p. If so then 2p, which at the smallest would be 2*(X^2+1), and assumed the only prime in that interval, would be bounded by one less than the smallest prime q, being also assumed the largest prime, in the interval (X+1)^2, (X+2)^2, which would have size at the most of (X+1)^2 + 2X+2.

    This is going to be true when 2X^2+2 > (X+1)^2 +2X+2, or X^2>4X+1 or X>4.

    This may be a good start, but while this proposition seems obvious, it is not know that any such prime exists! This indicates just how difficult this problem might be.

    See http://nrich.maths.org/discus/messages/7601/19862.html?1095166598
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2004
  6. Sep 20, 2004 #5
    While you're at it, how about generalising the conjecture, that between x^n and (x+1)^n, there would always be a prime number?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: *p>n? set prime
  1. Sum of primes < n (Replies: 1)

  2. 2^n-1 is prime (Replies: 5)