It is known that for every n > 1 there is always at least one prime p such that n < p < 2n.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The Bertrand's theorem's proof I read is quite involved. I've thought of another way to prove it but I think it's too simple to be correct. Can anyone please point out my mistakes?

below, Fundamental Theorem means the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic

Proof:

#

1) for any n > 1, n can be expressed as a product of prime factors (Fundamental Theorem)

2) Let PF[n] be a set containing all prime numbers that appear in the prime factorization of n.

e.g. PF[6] = {2,3}

3) obviously, if x is in PF[n] then x ≤ n.

4) for all prime numbers that are smaller than n, we look for one that is not in PF[n], if it exists, let it be M.

for M exists:

5a) consider K = n + M, K ≤ 2n (from 4)

6a) now, K is not divisible by any prime smaller than n, since for any prime that divides n, it does not divide M, and M does not divide n. (from 4)

7a) but K has a prime factorization (Fundamental Theorem)

8a) hence there must be a prime in the range [n, 2n]

for M not exists:

5b) consider K' = n+1, K ≤ 2n (assumption, n>1)

6b) now, K is not divisible by any prime smaller than n, since for any prime that divides n, it does not divide 1.

7b) but K has a prime factorization (Fundamental Theorem)

8b) hence there must be a prime in the range [n, 2n]

This proof seems alright to me, but after all I'm just an amateur. I would be grateful if anyone could point out the insufficiency of this proof so that I can learn from my mistakes.

Thanks.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Proving (a weaker form of) Bertrand's postulate

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**