4
$\begingroup$

Suppose there are finitely many primes $\{p_1, \ldots, p_k\}$ which are $11 \pmod {12}$ and consider $p = (p_1 \cdots p_k)^2 + 10$. Then $p_i \nmid p$ for any $i \leq k$, and $p \equiv 1 + 10 \equiv 11 \bmod 12$. Then $p$ is either a prime itself, contradiction, or $p$ has all prime divisors of the form $12n + 1, 12n + 5, 12n + 7, 12n + 11$. Not all prime factor are of the forms $12n + 1, 5, 7$ because then $p \equiv 1, 5, 7 \mod 12$. So it must have a prime factor $12n + 11$, but $p_i \nmid p$ and so we have a contradiction.

Is this proof valid?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $5\times 7\equiv -1\pmod {12}$ $\endgroup$ – lulu Apr 1 '18 at 13:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Here is a very nice proof, which you can compare with: Theorem $3.12$ here. I think, taking $N=3(p_1p_2···p_k)^2 −4$ is better. Your proof is not correct. $\endgroup$ – Dietrich Burde Apr 1 '18 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ $5 \times 7 \equiv 11(mod 12)$ $\endgroup$ – mandella Apr 1 '18 at 13:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ $11$ is the same as $-1 \pmod {12}$. My point was that your argument is incorrect. For instance, $11,47,107$ are all $11\pmod {12}$ but $(11\times 47\times 107)^2+10$ has no prime factor which is $11\pmod {12}$. $\endgroup$ – lulu Apr 1 '18 at 13:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $-1(mod12)=11(mod(12)$ $\endgroup$ – Rudi_Birnbaum Apr 1 '18 at 13:15
3
$\begingroup$

Suppose there are finitely many primes $\{p_1, \ldots, p_k\}$ which are $11 \pmod {12}$ and consider $p = (p_1 \cdots p_k)^2 + 10$.

So far so good. No, wait, $-1 \equiv 11 \pmod {12}$, but then squaring and adding $10$... okay, you're good at this point. Love the wonderfully confusing use of $p$ without subscript where duller minds would go with a capital letter like $P$ or $N$. Mwahahahahahahahaha!

Then $p_i \nmid p$ for any $i \leq k$, and $p \equiv 1 + 10 \equiv 11 \bmod 12$. Then $p$ is either a prime itself, contradiction, or $p$ has all prime divisors of the form $12n + 1, 12n + 5, 12n + 7, 12n + 11$. Not all prime factor are of the forms $12n + 1, 5, 7$ because then $p \equiv 1, 5, 7 \mod 12$.

I think this is where the problem arises. $5 \times 7 = 3 \times 12 - 1$. Of course $25$ can't arise from a finite sequence of primes of the form $12k - 1$.

Or let's say $47$ is the only prime of the prescribed form. Then $47^2 + 10 = 2219 = 7 \times 317$, and $317 \equiv 5 \pmod {12}$, so this is precisely a $5 \times 7$ situation.

Unless you explicitly say $k > 1$, the proof has to work for $k = 1$, and this one doesn't. Go back to the drawing board.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I see what you are trying to do. Here is the bad news. Generalizing a similar proof of that of Euclid's for the infinitude of primes isn't going to work. If you have a number $n=11\pmod {12}$, the first thing to realize is there exists a prime $p | n$ that is either congruent to $5$, $7$, or $11 \pmod {12}$. If there is no prime $p = 11 \pmod {12}$ dividing $n$, then there are two primes $q$ and $q_2$ such that $q = 5 \pmod {12}$ and $q_2 = 7 \pmod {12}$. The good news is that we can restrict integers $n$ of certain forms to only have prime factors congruent to $1$ or $11 \pmod {12}$ (excluding $2$ or $3$). Let $p$ be a prime and consider weather $x^2 = 3 \pmod p$ is solvable or not solvable. By the law of quadratic reciprocity, $p = 1$ or $11 \mod {12}$. Therefore, each prime $p$ dividing $x^2-3$ is either $1$ or $11 \pmod {12}$. If $x = 12k$ is a multiple of $12$, then $(12k)^2-3$ = $144k^2-3$ which is divsible by $3$. Removing this factor of $3$, we have $48k^2-1$, which is congruent to $11 \pmod {12}$. By the previous conditions, all primes $p$ dividing $48k^2-1$ are congruent to $1$ or $11 \pmod {12}$. It is simple to show that not all primes dividing $48k^2-1$ are of the form $1 \pmod 12$ because if this were true it would imply the $48k^2-1$ is cognruent to $1 \pmod {12}$, and $48k^2$ is congruent to $2 \pmod 12$, but $48$ is a multiple of $12$, and so $48k^2$, a contradiction, therefore there is at least one prime $p$ dividing $48k^2-1$ congruent to $11 \pmod {12}$, which is relatively prime to $k$ obviously. At this point you'd see how this is similar to Euclid's Proof of infinitely many primes.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

$p\equiv 11\pmod {12}\iff p=11+12n$. The statement is then an application of Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions. However you are asking here about your proof.

Well, look at the four first primes equal to $11$ modulo $12$ i.e. $11,23,47$ and $59$. Do you have

$$p=11^2\cdot23^2\cdot47^2\cdot59^2+10=492199062971=7\cdot11^3\cdot127\cdot415969$$ And you have these four prime factors are of the form $12n+7,12n+11,12n+5$ and $12n+1$ respectively.

Following your reasoning, in fact $492199062971\equiv{11}\pmod{12}$ however, no fifth prime of the required form appears in your expression for $p$.

I fear your nice attempt is not correct.

$\endgroup$

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.