Proving the primality of a quadratic over the natural numbers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the primality of the quadratic expression \( y = 3x^2 + 3x + 1 \) for natural number inputs \( x \). Participants explore whether this expression can be proven to yield prime numbers for all natural numbers, considering various mathematical theorems and reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the primality of \( y = 3x^2 + 3x + 1 \) for all natural numbers.
  • Another participant cites Goldbach's theorem, suggesting that if a polynomial is prime for all natural numbers, it must be constant, implying that the given quadratic cannot be prime for all \( x \).
  • Some participants discuss the roots of the quadratic and the implications of the discriminant being less than zero, indicating no real roots and questioning the existence of real factors.
  • One participant provides a counterexample, showing that for \( x = 5 \), the expression evaluates to 91, which is not prime, thus challenging the initial claim.
  • Another participant argues that nonconstant polynomials cannot yield primes indefinitely and presents a reasoning involving divisibility and polynomial behavior to support this view.
  • Some participants acknowledge finding prime values for specific inputs but emphasize that this does not prove primality for all natural numbers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the primality of the quadratic expression, with some arguing it cannot be prime for all natural numbers while others provide examples of prime outputs for certain values. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall primality of the expression.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference mathematical theorems and properties of polynomials, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the behavior of the quadratic expression across 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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K