2
$\begingroup$

Bertrand's postulate says:

For every $n>1$ there is always at least one prime $p$ such that $n<p<2n$.


Is the following statement:

For every $n>3$ there is always at least one prime $p$ such that $F_n<p<F_{n+1}$ ($F_n$ is $n$-th Fibonacci number).

also valid?

If it is invalid, is there a finite or infinite number of $n$s such that there is no prime between $F_n$ and $F_{n+1}$?


This question is inspired by another question. I feel intuitively that it may be interesting, but don't have enough number theory background to tackle it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Part I: determine the smallest positive integer $a$ such that $2F_n\le F_{n+a}$... $\endgroup$ – abiessu May 29 '15 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ a=2..... @abiessu $\endgroup$ – VividD May 29 '15 at 22:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In fact the prime number theorem implies that for any $\varepsilon > 0$ and sufficiently large $n$, there is a prime between $n$ and $(1 + \varepsilon) n$. For stronger results than this see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendre%27s_conjecture. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan May 29 '15 at 23:13
4
$\begingroup$

The conjecture is true.

From a result of Nagura, for $n\ge 25$, there is always a prime between $n$ and $1.2n$. Note that $F_9=34$, $F_{10}=55$, and their ratio is $1.617>1.2$. In fact, for all $n\ge 9$, we can prove that $\frac{F_{n+1}}{F_n}>1.2$ (*). Hence, combining these results gives a prime between $F_n$ and $F_{n+1}$ for all $n\ge 9$. It remains merely to check the smaller Fibonacci numbers.

(*) The ratio approaches $\phi=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\approx 1.6$ as a limit, and rather quickly.

$\endgroup$

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.