Positive integers of the form $3 * 2^n - 1$ are called Thâbit ibn Kurrah numbers.

and if those numbers are prime they are called Thâbit ibn Kurrah primes.

Now if for a fixed positive integer $n$ , $3 * 2^n - 1$ and $3 * 2^n - 5$ are both prime then we have a Thâbit ibn Kurrah cousin prime.

Conjecture : there are infinitely many Thâbit ibn Kurrah cousin primes.





Are there more known ??

Although its not reasonable to expect a proof for the conjecture since prime twins and cousin primes are not proven to be infinite sequences , it might be possible to disproof the conjecture.

But I was not able to find a reason why the conjecture would fail.

I know that there are only a finite amount of prime twins of type $2^n + 3$,$2^n + 5$ because from working with mod $24$ you can show that at least one of the two must be divisible by $3,5,7,11$ or $13$. ( and actually $11$ can be dropped ).

But I was not able to find such an argument for the Thabit ibn Kurrah cousins.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ n=34, 64. The next n will be quite large (>500,000). $\endgroup$ – Michael Stocker Mar 29 '15 at 22:28

The following is a heuristic based on the Borel-Cantelli lemma that suggests that there will only be finitely many such primes. I believe that actually proving such a result would be very difficult.

Assuming independence, the probability that both $3*2^n-1$ and $3*2^n-5$ are prime is $$\approx \frac{C_1}{(\log(2^n))^2}=\frac{C_2}{n^2}$$ for some constants $C_1,C_2$. Now, the sum $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \text{Pr}(E_n)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{C_2}{n^2}$$ converges, and so by the Borel-Cantelli lemma we expect that there are only finitely many such cousins.

  • $\begingroup$ Well , not so fast. :) From the first Hardy-Littlewood conjecture we know that $C_1$ is about $1.33$. Therefore $C_2 = 1.33 / ln(2)^2 $. From that it follows that the expected amount is $ C_2 \zeta(2) $ or equivalently $ (1.33 \pi^2) / (6 ln(2)^2) $. This gives us about $4.55$. Even if I would round this $4.55$ to $5$ , I see that there are 6 pairs known. (Last 2 given in the comment by Michael Stocker and primality checked by me). So this seems to contradict the Borel-Cantelli lemma. $\endgroup$ – mick Mar 31 '15 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ But despite that and the fact that I was aware of the Borel-Cantelli lemma I give you a +1 anyway :) $\endgroup$ – mick Mar 31 '15 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ On the other hand if we multiply (from above comments) the $4.55$ with $(1-2/3)^{-1} = 3$ we get $13.66$ which is larger then the $6$ pairs we found so far. That multiplication might be justified because neither term can ever be divisible by $3$. Well ... maybe. $\endgroup$ – mick Mar 31 '15 at 22:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @mick, you should read how Borel-Cantelli works - what you are saying is not correct. $\endgroup$ – Peter Humphries Apr 1 '15 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ Notice I use the distributive property , $ 3 ( P(a) + P(b) + P(c) ) = 3 P(a) + 3 P(b) + 3 P(c) $ So that multipliying the whole by $3$ is just as good as doing (multiplying) all probabilities seperately. So its not so naive as it looks. $\endgroup$ – mick Apr 1 '15 at 19:09

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.