Proof for non constant polynomial function

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the non-existence of non-constant prime-generating polynomial functions. It highlights that if a polynomial generates primes for specific values, such as primes themselves, no proof exists for such polynomials. The conversation references Euler's polynomial N^2 + N + 41, noting that while it generates primes for certain integers, it fails for larger values. A general proof is presented, stating that no polynomial with integer coefficients can consistently yield primes, as demonstrated by the divisibility of P(1 + t*p) by p. The proof's applicability extends to polynomials with rational coefficients as well.
khotsofalang
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
is there any proof to show the non-existence of non-constant prime generating polynomial functions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
khotsofalang said:
is there any proof to show the non-existence of non-constant prime generating polynomial functions?
You got to be more specific about what you mean by a non-constant prime generating polynomial. If it is what I believe you mean, then this was noted in an earlier thread re Euler's function N^2 + N + 41. If you mean N takes only specific values such as "n = prime" or some sequence other than 1,2,3... then there is no such proof. If you omit the constant 41 then of course each integer will be composit for n > 1, however, the basic proof for non existence of polynominals in general (no polynomial with integer coefficients will generate a prime for all n since if P(1) = a prime "p" then P(1 + t*p) will always be divisible by p) will work whether there is or is not a constant in the polynomial such as 41.

Edit:I believe that a variation of the proof will work for polynomials with rational coefficients also.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'

Thread 'How to define a vector field?'

Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad Equivalent definitons for primitive polynomials
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
855
Undergrad How to show ##p(x)=g(x)x\pm 1\in\Bbb{Q}[x]## is irreducible in ##\Bbb{Q}_{\Bbb{Z}}[x]##?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
Undergrad Questions about non existence of GCDs vs (coimages, cokernels)
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
597
Undergrad Quintic Polynomial Tschirnhaus Transform: Possible complex Bring Radicals
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Undergrad Want to understand how to express the derivative as a matrix
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Irreducible polynomials and prime elements
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Analogy question for algebraists
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Don't understand proof of uniqueness theorem for polynom factorization
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Is this a typo or am I missing something? (polynomial equations)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
MHB The irreducible polynomial is not separable
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K