Proof that exists prime btw n<p<n

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Arijun
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the existence of a prime number \( p \) such that \( n < p < n! \) for integers \( n > 2 \). Participants explore various approaches, including specific constructions of \( p \) and implications of known mathematical results.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a construction of \( p \) as \( 1 + \prod p_i \), where \( p_i \) are primes less than or equal to \( n \), and discusses the implications for \( p \) being less than \( n! \).
  • Another participant suggests an alternative construction \( p = 1 + n + \prod p_i \) and argues that if this \( p \) is not prime, it implies the existence of a prime between \( n \) and \( n + p + 1 \).
  • Concerns are raised about the necessity of having a prime between \( n \) and \( n + p + 1 \), with one participant expressing uncertainty about their previous reasoning.
  • Discussion includes the use of Bertrand's postulate as a potential simplification for proving the existence of such a prime.
  • A participant introduces the idea of \( Q \), the product of primes less than or equal to \( n \), and discusses its properties in relation to \( n! \) and prime factors.
  • Another participant suggests considering \( n! - 1 \) as a candidate for proving the theorem, outlining conditions under which it could be prime or lead to a prime greater than \( n \).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the methods to prove the existence of a prime between \( n \) and \( n! \), with no consensus reached on a single approach or solution. Some participants challenge each other's reasoning and propose alternative constructions.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the properties of the primes involved and the implications of the constructions proposed. The discussion reflects varying levels of certainty and exploration of different mathematical strategies.

Arijun
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
I'm trying to prove that for n>2, member of Z, exists some prime p s.t. n<p<n!. I have successfully proved it by saying there's no prime btw n and (n-1)!, but I want to prove it with my original thought:

first prove for 3, then for n>3:
p=1+∏pi (where pi is the ith prime less ≤n) is a prime and ∏pi | ∏ni=n! and since 4 is a factor of n! but not ∏pi, ∏pi | n!/4. from there you can prove p<n!

proving p>n is trickier. its easy when n factors into primes with each showing up not more than once, but I'm stuck on how to get it if n is, say, the square of two primes.

I'm pretty sure p is always > n because I tried it with the first ten thousand primes with no problems.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What about trying what you have, except do p=1+n+\Pi p_i? This is always less than \leq 2n+1 \leq n! (when n is at least 4). Now, this doesn't have to be a prime BUT if there is some prime divisor, then it has to be between n an n+p+1, right? So, either p is prime and it is between n and n! OR it isn't prime which forces a prime between n and n+p+1, so either way, (when n is at least 4) there is a prime between n and n!.

BTW, why do you say there is no prime between n and (n-1)!? If n=4, (n-1)! = 3! = 6 and 4 is between 3 and 6. I'm guessing you made a typo?
 
Why does there need to be a prime btw n and n+p+1?

I'm a little removed from my other proof at this point so I'm not entirely sure what I meant.
 
Robert1986 said:
What about trying what you have, except do p=1+n+\Pi p_i? This is always less than \leq 2n+1 \leq n! (when n is at least 4). Now, this doesn't have to be a prime BUT if there is some prime divisor, then it has to be between n an n+p+1, right? So, either p is prime and it is between n and n! OR it isn't prime which forces a prime between n and n+p+1, so either way, (when n is at least 4) there is a prime between n and n!.
Can't one of the pi be a factor of n+1?
 
Yeah, for some reason I thought that each pi divided n, but that's not the case. Ok, so if we can use Bertrand's postulate, this is easy. But I'm trying to think of another way.
 
Let P be the product of primes <= n. So P+1 is prime to all numbers <= n. If P < n, n must have repeated prime factors. We can multiply up P by such additional factors, never exceeding the number that occur in n, until we get Q > n. Still Q < n!, and Q+1 is prime to all numbers <= n (so is also < n!). If Q not prime it has a prime factor > n.
 
Robert1986 said:
Yeah, for some reason I thought that each pi divided n, but that's not the case. Ok, so if we can use Bertrand's postulate, this is easy. But I'm trying to think of another way.

OK, just multiply p by 2 until it gets bigger than n. Then you can use what I said (that p is prime or there is a prime factor bigger than n.) And of course this is less than n! when n is bigger than 3.

EDIT: OK, I feel like an idiot, apparantley this issue was setteled already.
 
haruspex said:
Still Q < n!.
How do we know Q < n! ?
 
Arijun said:
How do we know Q < n! ?

Because Q is merely a product of primes less or equal to n so multiples of primes such as 4 and 9 are not multiplied as they are for n!. Since there are less factors, the product is smaller. Even so Q+1 is not divisible by any prime less than or equal to n, this either Q+1 is prime or it is a product of primes that occur between n and n!
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I think that it suffices to consider the number n! - 1.

clearly n < n! - 1 < n! for n > 2.

If n! - 1 is prime, the theorem is proven.
If n! - 1 is not prime, then it must be divisible by some prime number less than n! - 1 (and therefore less than n!). But it cannot be divisible by any number less than or equal to n (other than 1) since n! is divisible by 1,2,3,...,n. Therefore this prime number is greater than n. Choose p as this prime number. Then n < p < n! and p is prime, which proves the theorem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K