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
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the expression \( p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}+1 \) is not divisible by any of the primes \( p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n} \). Participants are exploring the implications of this assertion and the validity of the proof structure presented.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants discuss the initial proof attempt, noting it only addresses divisibility by the last prime \( p_{n} \). They question how to extend the argument to cover all primes in the set.
  • There are suggestions to modify the proof to apply to any prime \( p_{x} \) in the list, with participants considering the use of variables to generalize the argument.
  • One participant hints at using substitution and modular arithmetic as alternative methods to demonstrate the claim.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants actively engaging in refining the proof and exploring different methods. There is no explicit consensus yet, but several productive directions are being pursued, including the potential for a generalized proof structure.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the assumption that the primes are distinct and are considering the implications of the Euclidean algorithm and modular arithmetic in their arguments.

BustedBreaks
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Let [tex]p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n}[/tex] be primes. Show that [tex]p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1[/tex] is divisible by none of these primes.Let [tex]p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n}[/tex] be primes
Let [tex]k \in N[/tex]
Assume [tex]p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}+1=kp_{n}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}}{p_{n}}+\frac{1}{p_{n}}=k[/tex]
[tex]p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n-1}+\frac{1}{p_{n}}=k[/tex]

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

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

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BustedBreaks said:
My issue is that this seems to only prove [tex]p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1[/tex] is not divisible by [tex]p_{n}[/tex] and not all [tex]p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n}[/tex].
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 [tex]p_{1}[/tex] I can just use [tex]p_{1}[/tex] instead of [tex]p_{n}[/tex], 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 [tex]p_{n}[/tex] on the right I would have [tex]p_{x}[/tex] where [tex]x\in{1,2,...,n}[/tex], but that seems weird.
 
BustedBreaks said:
I was thinking of writing something like what I had, but instead of [tex]p_{n}[/tex] on the right I would have [tex]p_{x}[/tex] where [tex]x\in{1,2,...,n}[/tex], 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 [tex]p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n}[/tex] be primes. Show that [tex]p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1[/tex] is divisible by none of these primes.Let [tex]p_{1}, p_{2},...,p_{n}[/tex] be primes
Let [tex]k \in N[/tex]
Assume [tex]p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}+1=kp_{n}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n}}{p_{n}}+\frac{1}{p_{n}}=k[/tex]
[tex]p_{1}p_{2}...p_{n-1}+\frac{1}{p_{n}}=k[/tex]

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

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

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

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

OR,

By using modular , [tex]p_{1} p_{2}...p_{n}+1\equiv1(modp_{i})[/tex] 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:

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K