Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Strong prime pattern, how prove?

  1. Jun 7, 2007 #1
    Hi

    I was playing around with ways to store numbers more compactly in bases other than 2 and, just for giggles, I tried a "base" of consecutive positive integers that add up to "n". When I applied it to primes, like so

    • 2 = 2
    1 2 = 3
    • 2 3 = 5
    1 2 • 4 = 7
    1 2 3 • 5 = 11
    1 • 3 4 5 = 13
    1 2 3 • 5 6 = 17
    1 • 3 4 5 6 = 19
    1 2 3 4 • 6 7 = 23
    1 2 3 4 5 6 • 8 = 29
    1 2 3 4 • 6 7 8 = 31
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • 9 = 37
    1 2 3 • 5 6 7 8 9 = 41
    1 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 = 43
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • 9 10 = 47
    1 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = 53
    1 2 3 4 5 6 • 8 9 10 11 = 59
    1 2 3 4 • 6 7 8 9 10 11 = 61
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • 12 = 67
    1 2 3 4 5 6 • 8 9 10 11 12 = 71
    1 2 3 4 • 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 = 73
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 • 13 = 79
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • 9 10 11 12 13 = 83
    1 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 = 89
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • 9 10 11 12 13 14 = 97
    1 2 3 • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 = 101
    1 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 = 103
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 14 15 = 107
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • 12 13 14 15 = 109
    1 2 3 4 5 6 • 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 = 113
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 = 127
    1 2 3 4 • 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 = 131
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 • 17 = 137
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • 15 16 17 = 139
    1 2 3 • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 = 149
    1 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 = 151
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • 15 16 17 18 = 157
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 = 163
    1 2 3 • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 = 167
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 • 18 19 = 173
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 = 179
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 = 181
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 • 20 = 191
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 • 18 19 20 = 193
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 = 197
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 = 199
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • 21 = 211
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 = 223
    1 2 3 • 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 = 227
    1 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 = 229

    A potentially interesting pattern emerged. If you look down the columns, you notice that for primes greater than 7 (m = 4) there are no primes missing their 3, 6, 10, 15, 21 terms. 3, 6, 10 etc are exact sums of n(n + 1) / 2

    Given:
    m, n element of positive integers
    p element of primes

    Where:
    m > 4
    m > b
    a = m(m+1) / 2
    b = n(n + 1) / 2

    Then:
    a - b != p

    I wrote a quick and dirty program and tested this for all primes up to p(300,000) and it seems to hold. How would I go about proving this? It's been years since I did proofs so I don't even know where to start.

    Any help appreciated

    P.S. is there some command that allows the display of nice neat tables within a post?
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 7, 2007 #2

    AlephZero

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    n(n+1)/2 - k(k+1)/2 = (n+k+1)(n-k)/2

    if n-k > 2 this can't be a prime number. Right now I don't feel in the mood to work the exact conditions for it to be prime when n-k=2 or n-k=1.
     
  4. Jun 7, 2007 #3
    Nice. Thanks!

    Not sure whether this pattern offers the slightest benefit for calculating or seiving primes (p(>2) - odd integer is also never prime) but it seemed interesting that all primes between p(5) and p(300,000) contain every k where k = m(m + 1) / 2. Like there might be a prime calculating trick in there somewhere.
     
  5. Jun 9, 2007 #4

    X=7

    User Avatar

    Hi ktoz & yes nice one-liner, AlephZero. Well, with n-k=1, the expression just reduces to n, so the condition is that n itself must be prime. Similarly for n-k=2, 2n-1 must be prime.

    ktoz, well spotted! I agree it's an interesting pattern, but I don't know enough to know if you're on to anything. I understood the pattern, and that all those primes seem to contain every k, where k=m(m+1)/2. However, I didn't see where your "a-b !=p" comes from - is the "!" a typo? Can you give one numeric example showing a, b, k, m, n and p.

    Cheers

    X=7
     
  6. Jun 9, 2007 #5
    != is the C expression for "not equal"

    p = 71
    m = ceil( (sqrt(8p + 1) - 1) / 2)
    k = {1, 2, 3, ... } < ceil( (sqrt(8m + 1) - 1) / 2)

    a = m(m + 1) / 2 = 78
    b = k(k + 1) / 2 = {1, 3, 6, 10, ...}

    a - b = 72 != p(n)
     
  7. Jun 10, 2007 #6

    X=7

    User Avatar

    Thanks ktoz - I get it now. Heh, I'm not a programmer & got my maths degree more than 20 years ago so rather rusty! AlephZero's rearrangement shows the condition for the difference to be prime is that n or 2n-1 would have to be prime. Having a look at the first "easier" case, n prime, would be the way I would try to go.

    Good luck.

    X=7
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Strong prime pattern, how prove?
  1. Primes - pattern or not? (Replies: 14)

  2. How to prove (Replies: 2)

Loading...