Is there a set $[p_1,p_2,...,p_n]$ of consecutive primes , such that $\prod_{j=1}^n p_j$ is a carmichael number ?

For $3$ and $4$ prime factors, I checked upto $p_1\le 10^{10}$ without success.

The number $N\ :=\ 3\times 5\times 7\times 11\times 13\times ...\times p=\frac{p\#}{2}$ can never be a carmichael number because for $p\ge 7$, the condition $6|N-1$ cannot hold ($N$ is divisble by $3$) and $3$ and $3\times 5$ are obviously not carmichael numbers.


Assuming some widely believed bounds on prime gaps, this should be impossible at least in the case of 3 prime factors. Suppose $p, q = p+a,$ and $r = p+b$ are consecutive primes, and $N = pqr$ is a Carmichael number. This implies in particular that $p-1$ must divide $N-1$. Writing $N-1 = pqr-1$ modulo $p-1$, we get $N - 1 \equiv (p - (p-1))(q - (p-1))(r - (p-1)) - 1 = (a+1)(b+1)-1 \pmod{p-1}$. So it must be that $p-1$ divides $(a+1)(b+1)-1$. But it is believed that prime gaps are asymptotically $o(\sqrt n)$, which would imply that at least for large $p$, the positive number $(a+1)(b+1)-1$ is much smaller than $p-1$, contradiction.

  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand the last claim. Why must $(a+1)(b+1)-1<<p-1$ hold assuming the gaps are of order $o(\sqrt{p})$ $\endgroup$ – Peter Oct 14 '15 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ If $p$, $q$, and $r$ are consecutive primes, then $q - p = a$ and $r - q = (b-a)$ are prime gaps and therefore of order $o(\sqrt p)$. Then $a + 1$ and $b + 1$ are also $o(\sqrt p)$, so their product is $o(p)$. $\endgroup$ – Ravi Fernando Oct 14 '15 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ But $o(p)$ is not necessarily much smaller than $p$. $\endgroup$ – Peter Oct 14 '15 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ It is much smaller than $p$. I'm using little-oh notation here, which means exactly that. $\endgroup$ – Ravi Fernando Oct 14 '15 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ Also note that the more commonly quoted conjecture is that prime gaps are just $O(n)$, or something like that. But in reality it's believed that the largest prime gaps grow on the order of $O(\log^2 n)$, which is microscopically smaller. $\endgroup$ – Ravi Fernando Oct 14 '15 at 18:41

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.