I answered a question to prove that there are infinitely many prime numbers, but I'm not sure if my attempt is right. Can somebody help me to check if my attempt is right? I would like, if I am wrong, not a answer, but just a hint, thank you to whoever helps me!

Question: Prove that the sequence of prime numbers is infinite using the sequence $\{R_n\}_{n\geq1}$ given by $R_n = n! + 1$.

My attempt:

Suppose that the sequence of prime numbers is finite, so the sequence $R_n$ is finite, therefore, $R_{n+1}$ is not a prime number, in other words, $R_{n+1} = t*k$, $t,k \in \mathbb{Z}^+$, but $R_{n+1} = (n+1)! + 1$ by definition of the sequence $R_n$.

Note that $R_{n+1} = (n+1)n(n-1)! + 1$ and $6|n(n+1)$, so $R_{n+1} = 6v(n-1)! + 1, v \in \mathbb{Z}^+$

The only integer number that divide 1 is himself, therefore, $1|R_{n+1}$, because $1|6v(n-1)!$ and $1|1 \Longrightarrow 1|6v(n-1)! + 1$.

Furthermore, $R_{n+1}|R_{n+1}$, therefore, $R_{n+1}$ is a prime number, this is a absurd, because $R_{n+1}$ is not a prime number by hypothesis, therefore, $R_{n+1}$ is a prime number and then the sequence of prime numbers is infinite.


Your wording is completely confusing. Your statement:

Suppose that the sequence of prime numbers is finite, so the sequence $R_n$ is finite

is wrong. Also, you then say that $R_{n+1}$ is not a prime number, but you did not determine what the value of $n$ is.

Furthermore, you then proved that $R_{n+1}$ is divided by $1$ and itself, and concluded that that means $R_{n+1}$ is a prime number. This is nonsense, since you did not prove that there is no other number that divides $R_{n+1}$. For example, look at this proof that $12$ is prime:

We can see that $1|12$ because $12=12\cdot 1$ and we also know that $12|12$ because $12=1\cdot 12$, therefore, because $1$ and $12$ both divide $12$, $12$ must be prime.


I believe you meant to say that if the sequence of prime numbers is finite, then the values of $n$ for which $R_n$ is prime must also be finite.

From here, you can simply take $n$ to be the product of all the primes (only finitely many by assumption), and then following the same argument as in Euclid's proof, there must be some prime that divides $R_n$ but it can't be on the list by construction. (Note that $R_n \equiv 1 \mod{p}$ if $p \mid n$).



Let $p_n$ be a prime divisor of $R_n=n!+1$, and show that $p_n$ must be larger than n.

Then conclude from this that there are infinitely many primes.

  • $\begingroup$ but I need to consider $p_n$ like the largest prime number and there are finite prime numbers too, right? $\endgroup$ – George Aug 24 '15 at 1:08
  • $\begingroup$ @George You can let $p_n$ be any prime divisor of $n!+1$, and then show that if $p_n\le n$ that you get a contradiction. This will show that for every $n$, you can find a prime larger than $n$. $\endgroup$ – user84413 Aug 24 '15 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for being slow to answer @user84413 . I understood thank you! $\endgroup$ – George Sep 2 '15 at 22:10
  • $\begingroup$ @George You're welcome -- I'm glad that made sense. $\endgroup$ – user84413 Sep 2 '15 at 22:25

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.