Prove p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}+1 is Not Divisible by Any of These Primes

  • Thread starter Thread starter BustedBreaks
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the expression p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}+1 is not divisible by any of the primes p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n}. Initial attempts show that the proof only demonstrates non-divisibility by the last prime, p_{n}. Participants suggest modifying the proof to apply to any prime in the set by using a variable or substitution method. Additionally, using the Euclidean algorithm or modular arithmetic is proposed as alternative approaches to establish that the greatest common divisor with any prime is one. These methods reinforce the conclusion that p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}+1 cannot be divisible by any of the primes involved.
BustedBreaks
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Let p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n} be primes. Show that p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1 is divisible by none of these primes.Let p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n} be primes
Let k \in N
Assume p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}+1=kp_{n}

\frac{p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}}{p_{n}}+\frac{1}{p_{n}}=k
p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n-1}+\frac{1}{p_{n}}=k

This is a contradiction because the left side will not be a natural number.

My issue is that this seems to only prove p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1 is not divisible by p_{n} and not all p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n}.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BustedBreaks said:
My issue is that this seems to only prove p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1 is not divisible by p_{n} and not all p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n}.
That sounds right.

So, can you modify the proof to make it work for, say, p1?

Or, can you find a way to use what this argument proves to prove the general theorem?
 
Hurkyl said:
That sounds right.

So, can you modify the proof to make it work for, say, p1?

Or, can you find a way to use what this argument proves to prove the general theorem?

To make it work for p_{1} I can just use p_{1} instead of p_{n}, I guess. I don't know if that helps me see what to do...

I was thinking of writing something like what I had, but instead of p_{n} on the right I would have p_{x} where x\in{1,2,...,n}, but that seems weird.
 
BustedBreaks said:
I was thinking of writing something like what I had, but instead of p_{n} on the right I would have p_{x} where x\in{1,2,...,n}, but that seems weird.
That sounds perfectly reasonable -- you want to write a proof that works simultaneously for each of the px's, so you have to use a variable.



Incidentally, the other method I was hinting at is substitution. Substitute into the original argument the list of primes
p1, ..., pk-1, pn, pk+1, ..., pn-1, pk
 
BustedBreaks said:
Let p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n} be primes. Show that p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1 is divisible by none of these primes.Let p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n} be primes
Let k \in N
Assume p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}+1=kp_{n}

\frac{p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}}{p_{n}}+\frac{1}{p_{n}}=k
p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n-1}+\frac{1}{p_{n}}=k

This is a contradiction because the left side will not be a natural number.

My issue is that this seems to only prove p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1 is not divisible by p_{n} and not all p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n}.

Thanks!
I guess you are doing the proof of infinite primes.(=

By using euclidean algorithm , you can conclude the gcd of p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}+1 with p_{i}<br /> for i=1,2,3...n will be 1 with a sound argument (hint: recall co-prime)

OR,

By using modular , p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1\equiv1(modp_{i}) for i=1,2,3...n, recalling 1 is not a prime , you may draw a conclusion that suffices to prove your proposition.
 
Last edited:
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top