MHB Proving the primality of a quadratic over the natural numbers

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the primality of the quadratic expression y=3x^2+3x+1 for natural numbers x. A key theorem states that non-constant polynomials cannot yield prime values for all natural numbers. Participants explore the roots of the quadratic and note that the discriminant is negative, indicating no real roots and thus no real factors. Despite some checks yielding prime results for specific values, examples like y(4)=21 demonstrate that the expression can produce composite numbers. Ultimately, the consensus is that the polynomial cannot be prime for all natural numbers.
mathworker
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
is there any way to prove or disprove the statement:
y=3x^2+3x+1 is prime for all x belongs to natural numbers...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: help!

mathworker said:
is there any way to prove or disprove the statement:
y=3x^2+3x+1 is prime for all x belongs to natural numbers...

Yes, use the following theorem (Goldbach 1752):

If $f\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ has the property that $f(n)$ is prime for all $n\ge 1$, then $f$ must be a constant.
 
Re: help!

mathworker said:
is there any way to prove or disprove the statement:
y=3x^2+3x+1 is prime for all x belongs to natural numbers...

Is...

$$ y = 3\ (x-x_{1})\ (x-x_{2})\ (1)$$

... where $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ are the roots of the equation $x^{2} + x + \frac{1}{3} = 0$. The discriminat is <0, so that no real roots exists and that means that no real factor of y in (1) exists...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Re: help!

chisigma said:
Is...

$$ y = 3\ (x-x_{1})\ (x-x_{2})\ (1)$$

... where $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ are the roots of the equation $x^{2} + x + \frac{1}{3} = 0$. The discriminat is <0, so that no real roots exists and that means that no real factor of y in (1) exists...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

I don't undesrtand. We have $y(x)=3(x-a)(x-\bar{a})$ with $a=(-3+\sqrt{3}i)/6$, however $y(n)=3(n-a)(n-\bar{a})$ could be composite or prime.
 
Last edited:
Re: help!

chisigma said:
Is...

$$ y = 3\ (x-x_{1})\ (x-x_{2})\ (1)$$

... where $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ are the roots of the equation $x^{2} + x + \frac{1}{3} = 0$. The discriminant is <0, so that no real roots exists and that means that no real factor of y in (1) exists...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

but if we consider x^2+x+1=y whose discriminant too is less than zero..
for x=4 it gives 21 which is not prime...:confused:
 
Re: help!

Fernando Revilla said:
Yes, use the following theorem (Goldbach 1752):

If $f\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ has the property that $f(n)$ is prime for all $n\ge 1$, then $f$ must be a constant.

but given function is not constant and i checked y =f(X) for some numbers and found it prime every time
 
Re: help!

mathworker said:
but given function is not constant and i checked y =f(X) for some numbers and found it prime every time

$$3\cdot 5^2 + 3\cdot 5 + 1 = 91 = 7\cdot 13$$ this is the smallest non-prime value.

Nonconstant polynomials can't be forever prime, indeed suppose $$f(x)=a_n\cdot x^n +\ldots + a_1\cdot x^1 + a_0$$

Then imagine it were always prime, and then $$f(x)-f(y)=a_n\cdot (x^n-y^n)+\ldots + a_1\cdot (x-y)$$ right?

Well, clearly $$x-y$$ divides $$x^n-y^n=(x-y)\cdot \left(x^{n-1}+x^{n-2}y+\ldots +x y^{n-2}+y^{n-1}\right)$$ for each $$n$$, and so $$(x-y)|(f(x)-f(y))$$

Thus if $$p$$ were a prime dividing $$f(r)$$ for some $$r\geq 1$$, we have $$\left( (k\cdot p + r) - r\right) | \left( f(k\cdot p + r) - f(r) \right)$$ for each $$k$$ and so, since $$p|f(r)$$, it follows that $$p | f(p\cdot k+r)$$ for each $$k\geq 1$$.
But $$f(p\cdot k+r)$$ for $$k\geq 1$$ can't all equal $$p$$, since $$f$$ would otherwise have to be constant. Hence some $$f(k\cdot p + r)$$ must be composite.

So with this construction in mind we could note that $$f(1)=7$$, and so $$f(7\cdot k + 1)$$ is nonprime for some $$k\geq 1$$, check for instance $$f(8)=217$$ which, as we saw, must be a multiple of $$7$$.
 
Re: help!

mathworker said:
i checked y =f(X) for some numbers and found it prime every time

For some, but not for all. :)
 
Re: help!

Fernando Revilla said:
For some, but not for all. :)

thank you for providing the theorem and quick reply...:D
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top