0
$\begingroup$

Let $p=p_k$, $q=p_{k+1}$ and $r=p_{k+2}$, where $p_m$ denotes the $m$th prime.

I conjecture that whenever $n$ is prime, where $n$ is defined as follows: $$n = 1+\left(\left\lfloor{p\over q}\right\rfloor+r\right) \left\lfloor{(p+r)(q^2+pr)\over(pqr)}\right\rfloor$$ then: $$ \frac{n-1}{4} \qquad\text{and}\qquad 4r+1$$ are both prime.

Although I've tried vigorously, I have no explanation as to why $n=4r+1,r = {n-1\over 2}$, although I heavily suspect that the solution rests on twin primes.

Alternative form:

$$n = 1+ z \left \lfloor{x\over y}+{z\over y}+{y\over z}+{y\over x}\right\rfloor+\left \lfloor{x\over y}\right\rfloor \left \lfloor{x\over y}+{z\over y}+{y\over z}+{y\over x}\right\rfloor$$


Example:

Terms $1\to 5$, where $t_m$ denotes the $m$th number $k$ which satisfies the conditions described in this question:


$$t_1 = 29 = 1+\left(\left\lfloor{3\over 5}\right\rfloor+7\right)\left\lfloor{(3+7)(5^2+3\cdot 7)\over(3\cdot 5\cdot 7)}\right\rfloor$$ $$\frac{29-1}{4} = 7,\qquad 4\cdot 7+1 = 29$$


$$t_2 = 53 = 1+\left(\left\lfloor{7\over 11}\right\rfloor+13\right)\left\lfloor{(7+13)(11^2+7\cdot 13)\over(7\cdot 11\cdot 13)}\right\rfloor$$ $$\frac{53-1}{4} = 13,\qquad 4\cdot 13+1 = 53$$


$$t_3 = 149 = 1+\left(\left\lfloor{29\over 31}\right\rfloor+37\right)\left\lfloor{(29+37)(31^2+29\cdot 37)\over(29\cdot 31\cdot 37)}\right\rfloor$$ $$\frac{149-1}{4} = 37,\qquad 4\cdot 37+1 = 149$$


$$t_4 = 173 = 1+\left(\left\lfloor{37\over 41}\right\rfloor+43\right)\left\lfloor{(37+43)(41^2+37\cdot 43)\over(37\cdot 41\cdot 43)}\right\rfloor$$ $$\frac{173-1}{4} = 43,\qquad 4\cdot 43+1 = 173$$


$$t_5 = 269 = 1+\left(\left\lfloor{59\over 61}\right\rfloor+67\right)\left\lfloor{(59+67)(61^2+59\cdot 67)\over(59\cdot 61\cdot 67)}\right\rfloor$$ $$\frac{269-1}{4} = 67,\qquad 4\cdot 67+1 = 269$$


$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What do the notations $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{P}_k$ mean? $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles May 15 '13 at 2:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is there a typo in the title? $\endgroup$ – vadim123 May 15 '13 at 3:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question does not make much sense. Do you realize you're claiming that if $r$ is prime (greater then 3) then $4r+1$ is also prime, which is clearly false? $\endgroup$ – Vinicius M. May 15 '13 at 3:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ViniciusM Agreed. That was going to be my next comment. The title is also confusing, apart from the contradictory equations, it also uses $r$. $\endgroup$ – Calvin Lin May 15 '13 at 3:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnWO, I recommend sharing the data you've collected and showing the pattern within that data. $\endgroup$ – vadim123 May 15 '13 at 3:15
3
$\begingroup$

Note that $\lfloor \frac{p}{q} \rfloor=0$, since $0<\frac{p}{q}<1$. Thus $n=1+r\lfloor \frac{(p+r)(q^2+pr)}{pqr} \rfloor=1+r \lfloor \frac{q}{r}+\frac{r}{q}+\frac{p}{q}+\frac{q}{p} \rfloor$.

Note that for $1<x<2$, we have $2<x+\frac{1}{x}<\frac{5}{2}$, since $x+\frac{1}{x}>2 \Leftrightarrow x^2+1>2 \Leftrightarrow (x-1)^2>0$ and $x+\frac{1}{x}<\frac{5}{2} \Leftrightarrow 2x^2+2<5x \Leftrightarrow (2x-1)(x-2)<0$.

We clearly have $p<q<r$, and by Bertrand's postulate $q<2p, r<2q$, so $1<\frac{r}{q}, \frac{q}{p}<2$, so by above we have $4<\frac{q}{r}+\frac{r}{q}+\frac{p}{q}+\frac{q}{p}<5$, so $n=1+r \lfloor \frac{q}{r}+\frac{r}{q}+\frac{p}{q}+\frac{q}{p} \rfloor=1+4r$.

It is now straightforward to see that when $n$ is prime, $\frac{n-1}{4}=r$ and $4r+1=n$ are prime.

$\endgroup$

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.