Proof: Twin Primes Always Result in Perfect Squares

Click For Summary
The discussion presents a proof that adding one to the product of twin primes results in a perfect square, specifically showing that for twin primes p and p+2, the equation p(p+2)+1 equals (p+1)². It emphasizes that this relationship holds true for any two integers differing by two, not just twin primes. A geometric interpretation is provided, illustrating the proof with a square and a rectangle. The conversation also critiques the phrasing of the proof, suggesting clearer language to avoid misconceptions about the dependency of the perfect square on the twin prime condition. Overall, the proof is affirmed as valid and applicable beyond twin primes.
Math100
Messages
816
Reaction score
229
Homework Statement
If ## 1 ## is added to a product of twin primes, prove that a perfect square is always obtained.
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof:

Suppose ## p ## and ## p+2 ## are twin primes.
Then we have ## p(p+2)+1=p^2+2p+1=(p+1)^2 ##.
Thus, ## (p+1)^2 ## is a perfect square.
Therefore, if ## 1 ## is added to a product of twin primes,
then a perfect square is always obtained.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42 and fishturtle1
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good to me. Stylistically, one might write "Thus, ##p(p+2)+1## is a perfect square." instead of "Thus, ##(p+1)^2## is a perfect square.".
 
… although the restriction to twin primes is unnecessary. As should be clear from the proof, it holds for any two integers that differ by two.

Edit: There is also a rather intuitive geometric interpretation: Make a square out of (p+1)^2 unit boxes. Take the top row containing p+1 unit boxes and place p of them in a column on the right side of the rectangle, thus leaving you with a rectangle of side lengths p and p+2 with a single leftover unit box.

Edit 2: Illustration
20220418_193630860_iOS.png


Edit 3: Even easier to see with ##q = p+1##, i.e.,
$$
(q-1)(q+1) = q^2 - 1 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad q^2 = (q-1)(q+1) + 1.
$$

Edit 4: The generalisation being cutting a strip of width b from the top of a square of side length a and placing a portion of length a-b of the strip to the right of the square, leaving a rectangle with sides a-b and a+b and a square of side length b:
$$
a^2 = (a-b)(a+b) + b^2.
$$
Regardless of ##a## and ##b## being integers or not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara, SammyS and PeroK
fishturtle1 said:
Stylistically, one might write "Thus, ##p(p+2)+1## is a perfect square." instead of "Thus, ##(p+1)^2## is a perfect square.".
This is more than a stylistic point: if you say "Thus, ##(p+1)^2## is a perfect square" then you are saying "because ## p(p+2)+1=p^2+2p+1=(p+1)^2 ## then ##(p+1)^2## is a perfect square" which is not correct (note 1). The words "Then we have" are also not appropriate here because that is saying "because ## p ## and ## p+2 ## are twin primes then ## p(p+2)+1=p^2+2p+1##" which is not correct (note 2).

The proof simply needs to be:
Math100 said:
Suppose ## p ## and ## p+2 ## are twin primes.
## p(p+2)+1=p^2+2p+1=(p+1)^2 ##, which is a perfect square.

Note 1: ##(p+1)^2## is a perfect square independent of the fact that ## p(p+2)+1=p^2+2p+1=(p+1)^2 ##.
Note 2: ## p(p+2)+1=p^2+2p+1## independent of whether ## p ## and ## p+2 ## are twin primes.
 
  • Like
Likes fishturtle1 and Mark44
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...