How to prove following conjecture ?

Definition :

Let $b_n=b_{n-2}+\operatorname{lcm}(n-1 , b_{n-2})$ with $b_1=2$ , $b_2=2$ and $n>2$ .

Let $a_n=b_{n+2}/b_n-1$

Conjecture :

  1. Every term of this sequence $a_i$ is either prime or $1$ .

  2. Every odd prime number is member of this sequence .

  3. Every new prime in sequence is a next prime from the largest prime already listed .

Maxima implementation of sieve :

/* input number n */
while max<=n do (
    if i=1 then(
    if max<a then (

You can run this code here .

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The $b_n$ are actually two independent sequences: $$\\ b_{n}=b_{n-1}+\text{lcm}(2n-1,b_{n-1}), n \ge 2, b_1 =2, \text{former even indexes} \\ b_{n}=b_{n-1}+\text{lcm}(2n-2,b_{n-1}), n \ge 2, b_1=2, \text{former odd indexes} $$ a similar sequence: $$b_n = b_{n-1} + \text{lcm}(n,b_{n-1}), n\ge 2, b_1=1$$ oeis.org/A135504 , oeis.org/A217663 $\endgroup$ – miracle173 Jan 1 '15 at 10:28

This is sequence A135506 in OEIS, and as far as I know, no proof to conjecture 1 has been published. Benoit Cloitre announced one in this paper, but I don't think it's been published.

Conjecture 2 is actually very simple to proof, I did so in my bachelor's thesis. Unfortunately, this is only in German, I can write it up in English if you're interested.

I think conjecture 3 is pretty much a direct consequence from the fact that $a_p=p$ for every prime, and this is the first time $p$ can occur in the sequence.

Edit: I actually realised that your definition of the quotient is slightly different since it goes two steps back. I'll check the argument - it shouldn't make much of a difference.

Edit: This is the full argument for conjectures 2 & 3. First we need the general relation between gcd $(a,b)$ and lcm $[a,b]$:

$$a\cdot b = (a,b)\cdot[a,b].$$

Then we note that the lowest common multiple $[n-1,b_{n-2}]$ is in particular a multiple of $b_{n-2}$, say $kb_{n-2}$ with $1\le k\le n-1$. Hence we have


so in every step the term $b_n$ gets a new factor between $2$ and $n$ which means in particular that all prime factors of $b_n$ are less or equal to $n$.

Now we rearrange $a_n$ with the above observation to


Let $p$ be a prime. Then $(p,b_{p-1})=1$ since all prime factors of $b_{p-1}$ are strictly smaller than $p$. But then


as claimed in conjecture 2.

Further, we have obviously $a_n\leq n+1$ for all $n$, so the first index for which the prime $p$ can appear in the sequence is $p-1$ which immediately implies conjecture 3.

As mentioned before, conjecture 1 seems quite a bit more difficult and I'd be interested in a proof myself.

PS: It took me a couple of pages to prove these facts when I first worked on them 6 years ago, but it's clearly much simpler now that I thought about it again.

Edit: I wrote a little longer blog post about this sequence.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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