Really hard number theory problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves showing that the product of all primes not exceeding a positive integer \( n \) is less than \( 4n \). Participants are exploring the implications of the problem statement and considering various mathematical approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants are attempting to clarify the definition of "primes not exceeding \( n \)" and whether it includes \( n \) itself. Others are suggesting the use of induction as a potential method for proof. There are also discussions about the relevance of the Prime Factorization Theorem and the distribution of primes.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants have offered insights into the distribution of primes and how it might relate to the problem, while others are questioning the effectiveness of induction in this context. No consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of the number of primes and their distribution, as well as the assumptions underlying the problem. There are references to limits and approximations related to the density of primes.

SNOOTCHIEBOOCHEE
Messages
141
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



neither my professor nor my TA could figure this out. so they are offering fat extra credit for the following problem

Let n be a positive integer greater than 1 and let p1,p2,...,pt be the primes not exceeding n.

show that p1p2...pt<4n


The Attempt at a Solution



I really don't know where to start here.

just throwing this out there, I am guessing they got 4k by having the sum of something like 2k+1 choose k but that's just a complete guess.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The number of primes not exceeding n? So wouldn't that mean that t=n-1 or do you mean that one of numbers in the p sequence need to be less than n? Either one I think will help you. I would recommend trying to prove this by induction. Let Base be 2. Then in Hypothesis let n = k and prove for k+1 using base and your hypothesis.
 
I am going to assume that "the primes not exceeding n." means all primes less than or equal to n, not "less than or equal to n" many primes. If n= 2, "the primes not exceeding 2" are just 2 itself. 2 is less than or equal to 42= 16. If n= 3, then "the primes not exceeding 3" are 2 and 3 so the product is 6: 6< 43= 64. Now suppose that the statement is true for some k greater than or equal 3. Either k+1 is a prime itself, or it is not. If it is not, then "the primes less than or equal to k+1" is exactly the same as "the primes less than or equal to k". In that case, the induction step is easy: the product of primes is less than or equal to 4k which is itself less than 4k+1. If k+1 is a prime what happens?
 
If k+1 is prime then k is divisible by two. can you factor out a two or soemthing?
 
This problem intrigued me, and I have managed to spend maybe a couple of hours on it, so far without success. My attempt so far involves an induction argument.

Something that might be relevant is the Prime Factorization Theorem, that involves the number of primes less than or equal to a number n, [tex]\pi[/tex](n).

It says
[tex] lim \pi (n) (ln n)/n = 1, as n grows w/o bound.[/tex]

This means that
[tex]\pi (n) \approx n/(ln n), for large n.[/tex]

Maybe this is helpful, maybe not.
Mark
 
I really don't think you can get away without considering the distribution of primes. The product of the primes less than n, P(n) can stay constant for a long time and then jump up by a factor much larger than 4. I don't think induction can work. Go with Mark's research. The density of primes around the integer k is 1/ln(k). The log of a prime around k is ln(k). So we can appoximate the log of the product of all of them by integrating ln(k)*1/ln(k) between 1 and n. Which is n. So the product of all the primes less than n is VERY approximately e^n. That's definitely less than 4^n. In fact, I think it's less than 3^n. But you should check low lying cases.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K