Let $p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4, p_5, p_6$ be consecutive primes in ascending order.

For what $p_1$ do $$p_1x+p_2y=p_3$$$$p_4x+p_5y=p_6$$ produce integer solutions $(x, y)$?

Example: $p_1=2, p_2=3, p_3=5, p_4=7, p_5=11, p_6=13$ give $x=16, y=-9$ which are integers.

Solving gives $$x=\frac{p_3p_5-p_2p_6}{p_1p_5-p_2p_4}\quad\text{and}\quad y=\frac{p_3-p_1x}{p_2}=\frac{p_1p_6-p_3p_4}{p_1p_5-p_2p_4}$$ However, I do not know how to find when $(p_1p_5-p_2p_4)|(p_3p_5-p_2p_6)$.

By trial and error, I have found the following solutions: $$p_1=2\implies(x,y)=(16,-9)$$$$p_1=5\implies(x,y)=(-9,-8)$$$$p_1=19\implies(x,y)=(-13,12)$$$$p_1=59\implies(x,y)=(-3,4)$$ I believe there are infinitely many $p_1$ that work.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question is equivalent to asking for which consecutive primes $p_1,\ldots ,p_6$ the ratio $\frac{p_3p_5-p_2p_6}{p_1p_5-p_2p_4}$ is an integer. The sequence of such initial primes $p_1$ starts with $(2,5,19,59,107,\ldots)$. It seems less frequent than, say, twin primes, but may be related to it. $\endgroup$ Jan 17, 2018 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ Is this a problem that you found somewhere that has a solution? Or your own question? Because I don't see any reason for a simple condition to exist other than the problem statement iself. $\endgroup$
    – orlp
    Jan 19, 2018 at 16:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @orlp It is a problem I've made up. $\endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    Jan 19, 2018 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ @DietrichBurde sorry, but for $107$ we get $p_1 = 107, p_2 = 109, p_3 = 113, p_4 = 127, p_5 = 131, p_6 = 137$ and thus the ratio you have is $(113\times131 - 109\times137)/(107\times131 - 109\times127) \approx -0.75$ which is certainly not an integer, so either the ratio condition is not equivalent or $107$ doens't belong in the list, right? $\endgroup$
    – RGS
    Jan 26, 2018 at 9:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RGS Yes, sorry a typo, it should be $151$. $\endgroup$ Jan 26, 2018 at 12:03

2 Answers 2


The infinitude of sextuplets of consecutive primes satisfying the given condition follows from some pretty strong well-known conjectures related to prime numbers. I will demonstrate it using Dickson's conjecture.

Consider the following six polynomials with integer coefficients: $$\begin{array}{c} p_1(n) := 210n + 59 \\ p_2(n) := 210n + 61 \\ p_3(n) := 210n + 67 \\ p_4(n) := 210n + 71 \\ p_5(n) := 210n + 73 \\ p_6(n) := 210n + 79 \\ \end{array}$$

Dickson's conjecture tells us that unless the product of these polynomials, $P(n)=\prod_i p_i(n)$ has a fixed divisor greater than $1$, there would be infinitely many integers $n$ for which all polynomials are simultaneously prime. The fixed divisor is a number which divides $P(n)$ for all integers $n$. This is easy to check in our case: $P(0)$ is a product of six primes and none of them divide $P(1)$. Thus, according to the conjecture, our polynomials should be simultaneously prime infinitely often.

It is also easy to see that $(x,y)=(-3,4)$ satisfies $$\begin{array}{c} p_1(n)x+p_2(n)y = p_3(n) \\ p_4(n)x+p_5(n)y = p_6(n) \\ \end{array}$$

The only remaining bit we need to prove is that these six primes would be consecutive, regardless of the value of $n$. This is not too difficult to see, though: All the numbers between $59$ and $79$ other than those used as summands in one of the six polynomials share a factor common with $210=2\times 3\times 5\times 7$ and thus cannot be primes.

In summary: It is very likely there are infinitely many primes satisfying the given condition. If one could prove there are only finitely many of them, it would disprove a few strong conjectures. On the other hand, infinitude of primes of this specific type does not imply any of those well-known conjectures; it is possible all of them are false, yet the number of primes of this specific kind would still be infinite.


Not a very mathematical approach to it, but I googled for a big list of primes (the first $10000$) and wrote a little script verifying for which values of $p_1$ we get that


is an integer. For those primes, I print $p_1$ and the solution $(x, y)$.

I found $133$ such ratios in the first $9995$ primes for a percentage of about

$$133 / 9995 \approx 1.13\%$$

The script can be found here and can be run online. The first solutions found, as well as the last are:

for p1 = 2 we have (x,y) = (16.0,-9.0)
for p1 = 5 we have (x,y) = (-9.0,8.0)
for p1 = 19 we have (x,y) = (-13.0,12.0)
for p1 = 59 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0)
for p1 = 151 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0)
for p1 = 487 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0)
for p1 = 587 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0)
for p1 = 739 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0)
for p1 = 881 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0)
for p1 = 1097 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0)
for p1 = 104009 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0)
  • $\begingroup$ I've just realised that on your list, with the exception of the four primes $p_1=2,5,19,31177$ we have that $$|y|=|x|+1$$ Interesting.... $\endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    Feb 25, 2018 at 15:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Might be tempted to ask whether there are infinitely many exceptions :) $\endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    Feb 25, 2018 at 15:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TheSimpliFire indeed quite curious; not only the exceptions but the regularity with which $|x| + 1 = |y|$ $\endgroup$
    – RGS
    Feb 25, 2018 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ In particular, I see that $y$ is always positive whereas $x$ is always negative, so $$y=1-x$$ and this leads to the equation $$\frac{p_1-p_2}{p_2-p_3}=\frac{p_4-p_5}{p_5-p_6}$$ Very strange. $\endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire
    Feb 28, 2018 at 14:21

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.