Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A side discussion over on this question has left me curious: is there any $B$ for which it's known that there are infinitely many primes adjacent to $B$-smooth numbers (i.e., for which there are infinitely many primes of the form $n\pm 1$, where all the prime factors of $n$ are $\leq B$)? Of course, the Lenstra-Pomerance-Wagstaff conjecture about the distribution of Mersenne primes (and specifically just the conjecture that there are infinitely many) implies this conjecture in the sharpest possible form (with $B=2$), but I'm wondering if results of this form have been proven for any value of $B$.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I'm pretty sure the answer is no, on the grounds that the $B$-smooth numbers are an exponentially thin set, and proofs of infinitely many primes are too much to expect in such circumstances. But I yield to anyone who can supply an actual reference to work on the topic.

share|improve this answer
    
Hmm. Isn't it just 'pseudoexponentially thin' for larger $B$? For instance, between $n$ and $2n$ there's only one 2-smooth number, so assuming 'random' prime distribution the odds are small ($O(1/\log n)$) that there's a prime adjacent to it. But there are $O(\log n)$ 3-smooth numbers in that range, which means heuristically a constant chance of finding a prime next to one over any range $(n\ldots 2n)$, and with $O(\log^2 n)$ 5-smooth numbers in that range we start to hit high probabilities. It seems at least plausible that there could be some $B$ for which this could be made precise... –  Steven Stadnicki Jun 9 '11 at 1:49
    
You may be right. But just knowing that there are lots of candidates is rarely enough for proving there are lots of primes. E.g., between $n$ and $2n$ there are $O(\sqrt n)$ numbers of the form $x^2+1$, but we can't even prove that one of them is prime. –  Gerry Myerson Jun 9 '11 at 5:07
    
That's a good point - here we have 'better' divisibility properties that might be used to some avail, but I can easily believe that they wouldn't be of any great use. Thank you! –  Steven Stadnicki Jun 13 '11 at 19:03
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.