Prime factors of a unique form in the each term a sequence?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a conjecture from "The Art of the Infinite" concerning a sequence defined by the formula 3n-1, specifically the series starting with 2. The claims state that the prime factors of each term can only be of the forms 3n-1, 3n, or 3n+1, and that no term can have all factors exclusively of the forms 3n or 3n+1. There is confusion regarding the interpretation of these claims, particularly the assertion that each term must have at least one prime factor of the form 3n-1. The participants are seeking a formal proof for these claims, especially how to demonstrate that terms cannot consist solely of factors in the forms 3n or 3n+1. Clarification on the implications of these claims is also requested to strengthen the understanding of the conjecture.
musicgold
Messages
303
Reaction score
19
This is no homework. I have come across a conjecture in a book called The art of the infinite:the pleasures of mathematics. I want to understand how to prove it.

Homework Statement


Consider a 3-rhythm starting with 2: ## 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17...##
The each number in this sequenc has the form ##3n-1##.

The book says that each of these terms can have prime factors of only the following forms: ## 3n-1,~ 3n,~ 3n+1 ...(1)##
Then it claims that no term could have all factors of the form ##3n ~ or 3n+1, ~ or ~ 3n ~ and ~ 3n+1 ...(2)##

Then it claims that each term in the sequence has to have at least one prime factor of the form ##3n-1 ...(3)##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


While I get claim (2) but I am not clear about how I can prove claims (1) and (3). I have tried manually testing and the claims are correct, however I want to prove them. How should I go about it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(1) seems really trivial. All numbers are of the form 3n-1, 3n or 3n+1.
3n isn't possible as prime factor (or any factor) of a number of the form 3n-1. If a number n has a factor that is divisible by 3, n must also be divisible by 3.

I really don't know what (2) means. Factors of the form 3n aren't possible, so it makes no sense to include them here. Is it meant that no number of the form 3n-1 can have only prime factors of the form 3n+1 ? If you can prove that, than (3) would immediately follow.
 
Last edited:
musicgold said:
I am not clear about how I can prove claims ... (3)
It follows directly from (2)
willem2 said:
I really don't know what (2) means.
It is saying that each term must contain a factor which is neither of 3n form nor of 3n+1 form.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K