2
$\begingroup$

It's been proven there are infinitely many primes. This means that there exist infinitely many $m$ such that for all other prime $n$, "$m \not\equiv 0 \pmod{n}$".

My question is then, would this imply there exist infinitely many $m$ such that for all prime $n$ other than $n=m-2$, "$m \not\equiv 2 \pmod{n}$"? How about $4 \pmod{n}$?

Finally how about equivalent to neither 2 nor 4$\pmod{n}$?

Edit: To clarify my final question, another way of saying this would be "Are there infinitely many numbers, $m$, such that $m-2$ and $m-4$ are prime?" This closely approximates the twin prime conjecture, but just states it differently.

Edit: Still trying to clear ambiguity. Pick a number $m$. Is $m\equiv 2 \pmod{n}$ for some prime $n$ other than when $n=m-2$? Then that $m$ doesn't work. For instance, $m=11$: $11\equiv 2 \pmod{3}$ so 11 doesn't work. But consider $m=13$. There are no prime $n$'s we could insert such that $13\equiv 2 \pmod{n}$ other than when $n=m-2$ -- $11=13-2$. Thus $m=13$ works. Are there infinitely many working $m$'s? My final question (see above): "are there infinitely many that work for both 2 and 4 simultaneously?"

| cite | improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $mn+1\not\equiv 2\pmod {n}$ for any $m$ if $n>1$. You don't need anything about primes to prove that. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Feb 24 '16 at 6:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What does "congruent to $2 \pmod n$" mean to you? $\endgroup$ – pjs36 Feb 24 '16 at 6:10
  • $\begingroup$ @pjs36 For instance, 5 is congruent to $2 \pmod{3}$, thus 5 doesn't work. $\endgroup$ – Elem-Teach-w-Bach-n-Math-Ed Feb 24 '16 at 6:12
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @user3363795 An aside about usage: Everywhere you've written "infinite", it should be "infinitely many". For example, there are no "infinite primes", but there are infinitely many primes. $\endgroup$ – BrianO Feb 24 '16 at 7:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The OP answered their own question. $\endgroup$ – Greg Martin Feb 24 '16 at 8:26
4
$\begingroup$

If $x\geq 4$ and $n$ is a prime divisor of $x-2$ then $x\not = n$ and $x\equiv 2 \pmod n.$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I get this now. You use $x$ where I use $m$. This says basically if $x-2$ isn't prime, there must be some $n$ such that $x \equiv 2 \pmod{n}$. My edit at the bottom of my original question now addresses this. $\endgroup$ – Elem-Teach-w-Bach-n-Math-Ed Feb 25 '16 at 15:47
  • $\begingroup$ @user3363795 Even if $x-2$ is prime then there will be a prime $n$ such that $x \equiv 2 \pmod n$, namely $n=x-2$. The only time $x-2$ does not have any prime divisor is if $x\in \{1,3\}$ (since $\pm1$ are the only numbers that aren't divisible by a prime). $\endgroup$ – Erick Wong Feb 25 '16 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ True, but in the case where $x-2$ is prime, the only prime $n$ such that $x \equiv 2\pmod n$ is $x-2$ itself. This was accounted for in the original question. $\endgroup$ – Elem-Teach-w-Bach-n-Math-Ed Feb 25 '16 at 19:33
1
$\begingroup$

I've found the first 2 questions boil down to "are there infinitely many numbers 2 more than a prime?" and "4 more than a prime?" Since there are infinitely many primes, the answer to the first 2 questions is a proven yes. The answer to the 3rd is just another avenue for exploring the twin prime conjecture, but thoughts to this end would be welcome!

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

For any (not necessarily prime) integer $n>1$ there are infinitely many natural numbers $m$ with $m\not\equiv 2\pmod n$. Indeed, for any $k$ there are $kn$ natural numbers $\le kn$ and only $k$ of these are $\equiv 2\pmod n$. In fact, any set of $n$ consecutive integers contains $n-1$ numbers $\not\equiv 2\pmod n$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think my ambiguity has confused you. See Thomas's comments under the original post. Rather than "for any $n$, $m\not\equiv 2\pmod n$ for that particular $n$," I mean "for all prime $n$, are there infinitely many $m$ such that $m\not\equiv 2\pmod n$." (Still slightly ambiguous, but I think you get what I mean, and I can't think of a way to remove the ambiguity. Any suggestions would be great!) $\endgroup$ – Elem-Teach-w-Bach-n-Math-Ed Feb 25 '16 at 18:45

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.