Prove that if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math100
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that for any integer \( n > 2 \), there exists a prime \( p \) such that \( n < p < n! \). Participants explore various approaches to this proof, including assumptions about the primality of \( n! - 1 \) and the implications of its factors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants assume \( n! - 1 \) is composite and discuss the existence of a prime factor \( p \) that satisfies \( n < p < n! \). Others question the validity of this assumption and the implications of \( n! - 1 \) being prime. There are suggestions to consider cases based on the primality of \( n! - 1 \) and the necessity of clarifying the existence of \( p \).

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants have provided insights into the structure of the proof, while others express confusion about certain assumptions and the logical flow. There is no explicit consensus yet, but several productive directions have been suggested.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of clearly defining assumptions and the implications of the primality of \( n! - 1 \). There is also mention of the need to address cases where \( n! - 1 \) is prime versus composite, highlighting the complexity of the proof.

Math100
Messages
823
Reaction score
234
Homework Statement
Prove that if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof:

Assume to the contrary that ## n!-1 ## is not prime.
That is, ## n!-1 ## is composite.
Let ## p ## be a prime factor of ## n!-1 ## such that ## n<p ## for some ## n\in\mathbb{N} ##
where ## n>2 ##.
Since ## p\mid (n!-1) ##, it follows that ## p\nmid n! ##.
This means ## p\nleq n ##.
Note that ## p\leq n!-1 ##,
because ## p\mid (n!-1) ##.
Thus ## n<p<n! ##.
Therefore, if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Math100 said:
Homework Statement:: Prove that if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
Relevant Equations:: None.

Proof:

Assume to the contrary that ## n!-1 ## is not prime.
That is, ## n!-1 ## is composite.
Let ## p ## be a prime factor of ## n!-1 ## such that ## n<p ## for some ## n\in\mathbb{N} ##
where ## n>2 ##.

It's not clear to me why such a prime ##p## exists. (referring to "
Let ## p ## be a prime factor of ## n!-1 ## such that ## n<p ## for some ## n\in\mathbb{N} ##
where ## n>2 ##." which won't quote for some reason).
Math100 said:
Since ## p\mid (n!-1) ##, it follows that ## p\nmid n! ##.
This means ## p\nleq n ##.
Here is where you've shown such a prime ##p## exists.
Math100 said:
Note that ## p\leq n!-1 ##,
because ## p\mid (n!-1) ##.
Thus ## n<p<n! ##.
Looks good to me. But what about the case where ##n! - 1## is prime?
Math100 said:
Therefore, if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
Note: In your first sentence you say 'assume to the contrary' but never reach a contradiction. Consider constructing the proof as:

Proof: Let ##n > 2## be an integer. We consider two cases:

Case 1: ##n! - 1## is composite. [insert your work]

Case 2: ##n! - 1## is prime. [more work to do] edit: I'm a dope, but it's still work mentioning (imo) why this case is 'obvious'.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math100, benorin and PeroK
Math100 said:
Homework Statement:: Prove that if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
Relevant Equations:: None.

Proof:

Assume to the contrary that ## n!-1 ## is not prime.
That is, ## n!-1 ## is composite.
Let ## p ## be a prime factor of ## n!-1 ## such that ## n<p ## for some ## n\in\mathbb{N} ##
where ## n>2 ##.
Since ## p\mid (n!-1) ##, it follows that ## p\nmid n! ##.
This means ## p\nleq n ##.
Note that ## p\leq n!-1 ##,
because ## p\mid (n!-1) ##.
Thus ## n<p<n! ##.
Therefore, if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
I'm sorry to say that none of this makes any sense to me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: benorin
Math100 said:
Prove that if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
Proof:
Assume to the contrary that ## n!-1 ## is not prime.
Starting at the beginning of what @PeroK said made no sense, your assumption is not the negation of the original premise. The original premise says that the prime p must be somewhere between n and n!, not just n! - 1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nuuskur
This can be proved via induction. Bertrand's postulate gives much better bounds, so could be used to indirectly prove the statement in the OP.

Either way, your supposition is not to the contrary. The claim is
<br /> \forall n&gt;2,\quad \exists p\in\mathbb P,\quad n&lt;p \quad\mbox{and}\quad p&lt;n!<br />
When negated, it becomes
<br /> \exists n&gt;2,\quad \forall p\in\mathbb P,\quad p&lt; n! \Rightarrow p\leqslant n<br />
and it's not obvious at all, why the negation should be false.

I teach my students to get comfortable with playing around with propositions, so they would understand what it means (among other things) to consider "the contrary" to a given statement. I extend the same recommendation to you, @Math100 . Learn or revise propositional calculus.

P. Suppes "Introduction to logic" is an excellent source for that. Available online for free, among the first results in a google search.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude and benorin
Let ## n>2 ## be a natural number.
Then we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n!-1 ## is prime.
Then we have ## p=n!-1 ## for some ## p\in\mathbb{P} ##.
Thus ## n<p<n! ## implies ## n<n!-1<n! ## for ## n>2 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n!-1 ## is not prime.
That is, ## n!-1 ## is composite.
Let ## p ## be a prime factor of ## n!-1 ## such that ## n<p ## for some
## n\in\mathbb{N} ## where ## n>2 ##.
Then we have ## p\mid (n!-1) ##.
Note that ## p\leq n ## implies ## p\mid n! ##.
Since ## p\mid n! ## and ## p\mid (n!-1) ##,
it follows that ## p\mid 1 ##.
Thus ## p=\pm 1 ##.
This is a contradiction because ## p ## must be a prime number
where ## p\neq \pm 1 ##.
Therefore, if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nuuskur
Math100 said:
Let ## n>2 ## be a natural number.
Then we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n!-1 ## is prime.
Then we have ## p=n!-1 ## for some ## p\in\mathbb{P} ##.
Thus ## n<p<n! ## implies ## n<n!-1<n! ## for ## n>2 ##.
ok so far. I'd rewrite the last two sentences as "Choose ##p = n! - 1##. Then ##n < p < n!## since ##n > 2##.
Math100 said:
Case #2: Suppose ## n!-1 ## is not prime.
That is, ## n!-1 ## is composite.
Let ## p ## be a prime factor of ## n!-1 ## such that ## n<p ## for some
## n\in\mathbb{N} ## where ## n>2 ##.
Since the argument below shows such a prime ##n < p## exists, you shouldn't assume its existence here. The above sentence should be "Let ##p## be a prime factor of ##n! - 1##". We don't need to redefine ##n## because we did so at the beginning.
Math100 said:
Then we have ## p\mid (n!-1) ##.
Right; so ##p \le n! - 1 < n!##.
Math100 said:
Note that ## p\leq n ## implies ## p\mid n! ##.
Since ## p\mid n! ## and ## p\mid (n!-1) ##,
it follows that ## p\mid 1 ##.
Thus ## p=\pm 1 ##.
This is a contradiction because ## p ## must be a prime number
where ## p\neq \pm 1 ##.
Therefore ##p > n##.
Math100 said:
Therefore, if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math100
Math100 said:
Let ## n>2 ## be a natural number.
Then we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n!-1 ## is prime.
Then we have ## p=n!-1 ## for some ## p\in\mathbb{P} ##.
Thus ## n<p<n! ## implies ## n<n!-1<n! ## for ## n>2 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n!-1 ## is not prime.
That is, ## n!-1 ## is composite.
Let ## p ## be a prime factor of ## n!-1 ## such that ## n<p ## for some
## n\in\mathbb{N} ## where ## n>2 ##.
Then we have ## p\mid (n!-1) ##.
Note that ## p\leq n ## implies ## p\mid n! ##.
Since ## p\mid n! ## and ## p\mid (n!-1) ##,
it follows that ## p\mid 1 ##.
Thus ## p=\pm 1 ##.
This is a contradiction because ## p ## must be a prime number
where ## p\neq \pm 1 ##.
Therefore, if ## n>2 ##, then there exists a prime ## p ## satisfying ## n<p<n! ##.
It's not necessary to "beat around the bush" so to speak.

Case 1. If ##n!-1## is prime, we're done. This is clear, the reader is eager to read about Case 2, already.

Case 2. Assume ##n!-1## is composite and let ##p## be a prime factor. If ##p\leqslant n##, then what you say follows. Thus, ##n<p<n!-1## and we're done.

What you write is mathematically correct, though. Some stylistic observations.
Let ## p ## be a prime factor of ## n!-1 ## such that ## n<p ## for some
## n\in\mathbb{N} ## where ## n>2 ##.
Then we have ## p\mid (n!-1) ##.
Note that ## p\leq n ## implies ## p\mid n! ##.
Since ## p\mid n! ## and ## p\mid (n!-1) ##,
it follows that ## p\mid 1 ##.
What follows from "Note that.." is what would happen if some prime factor of ##n!-1## was smaller than ##n##. So every prime factor must be between ##n## and ##n!-1##. Goes back to what I told you about quantifying your statements. It helps the reader and it helps you.

The same thing could be expressed more clearly as follows.
Suppose ##n!-1## is composite and let ##p## be a prime factor. Then necessarily ##n<p##, otherwise ##p\mid n!##, whence ##p\mid 1##, which is impossible.
 
Here's how I would do it:

Let ##n > 2##. We will show that there exists a prime ##p## such that ##n < p < n!##.

Note that every prime ##\le n## divides ##n!## and a prime cannot divide two consecutive integers. Therefore, any prime factor of ##n! - 1## must be greater than ##n##. And, if ##n! - 1 > 1## then it must have a prime factor, ##p##, which must then satisfy ##n < p < n!##.

Note that ##n! - 1> 1## is satisfied by all ##n > 2##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math100

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K