This is the proof from the book:
Theorem. There are infinitely many primes of the form $4n+3$.
Lemma. If $a$ and $b$ are integers, both of the form $4n + 1$, then the product $ab$ is also in this form.
Proof of Theorem:
Let assume that there are only a finite number of primes of the form $4n + 3$, say
$$p_0, p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_r.$$
Let $$Q = 4p_1p_2p_3\cdots p_r + 3.$$
Then there is at least one prime in the factorization of $Q$ of the form $4n + 3$. Otherwise, all of these primes would be of the form $4n + 1$, and by the Lemma above, this would imply that $Q$ would also be of this form, which is a contradiction. However, none of the prime $p_0, p_1,\ldots, p_n$ divides $Q$. The prime $3$ does not divide $Q$, for if $3|Q$ then $$3|(Q-3) = 4p_1p_2p_3\cdots p_r,$$ which is a contradiction. Likewise, none of the primes $p_j$ can divides $Q$, because $p_j | Q$ implies $p_j | ( Q - 4p_1p_2\cdots p_r ) = 3$, which is absurd. Hence, there are infinitely many primes of the form $4n +3$. END
From "however, none of the prime ...." to the end, I totally lost!
- Is the author assuming $Q$ is prime or is not?
- Why none of the primes $p_0, p_1,\ldots, p_r$ divide $Q$? Based on what argument?
Can anyone share me a better proof?