Prove that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality ## p_{n+3}^{2}

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants apply Bertrand's Postulate to derive inequalities involving prime numbers. Others question the validity of jumping from specific cases (like ## n=3 ## and ## n=4 ##) to a general conclusion. There is discussion about the relevance of certain assumptions and the need for justification of inequalities used in the proof.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and suggestions for refining the proof. Some guidance has been offered regarding the application of Bertrand's Postulate and the necessity of addressing specific cases. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, particularly concerning the assumptions made about the primes involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that for ## n \geq 5 ##, the smallest prime in the product on the right side of the inequality is at least 11, which influences the validity of the inequality being discussed. There are also references to specific numerical examples that illustrate the inequality for certain values of ## n ##.

Math100
Messages
823
Reaction score
234
Homework Statement
Let ## p_{n} ## denote the nth prime number. For ## n\geq 3 ##, prove that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
[Hint: Note that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.]
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof:

Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
Then ## p_{n+3}<2p_{n+2} ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<4p_{n+2} (2p_{n+1})=8p_{n+2} p_{n+1} ##.
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Math100 said:
Homework Statement:: Let ## p_{n} ## denote the nth prime number. For ## n\geq 3 ##, prove that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
[Hint: Note that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.]
Relevant Equations:: None.

Proof:

Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
Then ## p_{n+3}<2p_{n+2} ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<4p_{n+2} (2p_{n+1})=8p_{n+2} p_{n+1} ##.
So you have applied the hint, but the work below doesn't take things any further.
Math100 said:
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.

This won't fly. You can't jump from establishing the equation for ##p_6^2## and ##p_7^2##, and then make the leap ("Therefore") to ##p_n^2##.
 
What should I do then?
 
You need to continue what you were doing with the hint.
 
Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Assume ## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Then ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<11p_{n+1} p_{n+2}=p_{5} p_{n+1} p_{n+2}\leq p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
Note that ## p_{n}\geq 11 ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Maarten Havinga
Math100 said:
Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Assume ## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Then ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<11p_{n+1} p_{n+2}=p_{5} p_{n+1} p_{n+2}\leq p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
Note that ## p_{n}\geq 11 ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.
This is much better, although there is still a lot of stuff here that doesn't need to be included. E.g. in the 4th line under Case#2, you say "Assume ## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ## for ## n\geq 5 ##."
You don't need to include Bertrand's Postulate again.

You also don't need Case 2, where n = 4.
Edit: It turns out that you do need this case.
If n = 4, the hint doesn't apply, but ##289 = 17^2 = p_{4 + 3}^2 = p_7^2 < p_4p_5p_6 = 7*11*13 = 1001##.
So the statement is proved for n = 4.


If n = 3, you're dealing with ##p_6, p_5,## and ##p_4##, which are 13, 11, and 7, respectively.
##169 = p_6^2 < 8p_1p_2 = 8\cdot11\cdot7 = 615##, so the statement is true for n = 3


If n > 3 n > 4 the smallest prime of the three primes on the right side of the statement to be proved is always ##\ge 11##, so ##p_{n+3}^3 < 8p_{n+1}p_{n + 2} < p_np_{n+1}p_{n + 2} ##.
 
Last edited:
Mark44 said:
If n > 3, the smallest prime of the three primes on the right side of the statement to be proved is always ##\ge 11##, so ##p_{n+3}^3 < 8p_{n+1}p_{n + 2} < p_np_{n+1}p_{n + 2} ##.
##p_4=7 < 8.##
 
fresh_42 said:
##p_4=7 < 8.##
If n = 4, then ##p_{n + 3} = p_7##, which is 11, and 8 < 11.
 
Mark44 said:
If n = 4, then ##p_{n + 3} = p_7##, which is 11, and 8 < 11.
##p_n## is relevant, not ##p_{n+3}## (compare post #1 and hint therein).
 
  • #10
fresh_42 said:
##p_n## is relevant, not ##p_{n+3}## (compare post #1 and hint therein).
Here's the problem statement and hint, from post #1.
Let ## p_{n} ## denote the nth prime number. For ## n\geq 3 ##, prove that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
[Hint: Note that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.]

My work for ##p_4## had on off-by-one error, so this prime needs its own case, contrary to what I said earlier.
##289 = p_7^2 < 8*p_5*p_6## per the hint. While it's true that ##8 > p_4 = 7##, it is nevertheless true that ##289 < p_4p_5p_6 = 7*11*13 = 1001##
For n = 5, we have ##361 = 19^2 = p_8^2 < 8p_6p_7 < p_5p_6p_7 = 11*13*17 = 2431##
For n > 5, the smallest prime in the product of the three primes, ##p_n## is at least 13, which is larger than 8.
So for any integer ##n \ge 3##, ##p_{n + 3}^2 < p_np_{n+1}p_{n+2}##.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Math100 said:
Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
That statement is not relevant at this point.
Math100 said:
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Assume ## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Two problems: 1. There is no reason to assume that, because it is implied by Bertrand's postulate. 2. You are about to use Bertrand's postulate twice. You have to state exactly how you are using it. Merely restating the postulate does not do the job.
Math100 said:
Then ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<11p_{n+1} p_{n+2}=p_{5} p_{n+1} p_{n+2}\leq p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
You have to justify the first two inequalities. Use Bertrand's postulate to do so.
Math100 said:
Note that ## p_{n}\geq 11 ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
You've said this twice now. Once is usually enough.
Math100 said:
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K