As $p$ and $q$ are successive odd primes, for example if $p = 3$, $q = 5$ then $p + q = 8 = 2 \times 4$ here 4 is a composite number. But how to prove it generally in all conditions?
-
What do you mean by successive? How can we tell if $p$ and $q$ are successive of those are the only terms in our successive sequence. For example $3, 5, 7$ is a successive sequence. Do you mean consecutive primes? Or in your case, neighbouring primes? – Mr Pie Feb 18 '18 at 04:31
5 Answers
Assume $r$ is also prime. Then two cases: $$r<p \ \ \text{or} \ \ q<r.$$ First case: $$2r=r+r<p+q \ \ \text{contradiction}.$$ Second case: $$p+q<r+r=2r \ \ \text{contradiction}.$$ Hence $r$ is not prime.
- 31,482
Are you requiring $p$ and $q$ to be twin primes? As in $p = r - 1$ and $q = r + 1$? Then $p + q = (r - 1) + (r + 1) = 2r$. This means that $r$ is even and thus composite. e.g., 5 + 7 = 12 which is twice 6.
But if you don't require $p$ and $q$ to be twin primes, but merely that every integer strictly between $p$ and $q$ be composite, then we have $p = r - k$ and $q = r + k$, where $r$ may be odd or even but certainly composite, and we're not too concerned with the value of $k$. e.g., 7 + 11 = 18, which is twice 9.
The foregoing assumes we're only talking about positive primes. But considering negative primes hardly changes things: $-2 + 2 = 0 = 2 \times 0$.
- 14,663
Suppose $p<q$. Then
$2p < p+q < 2q \Rightarrow 2p<2r<2q \Rightarrow p<r<q$
How $p$ and $q$ are successive primes, then $r$ can't be prime.
- 1,116
Suppose $p < q$. If $r$ were a prime number, then we would have $p < r < q$. But that is a contradiction since $p$ and $q$ are supposed to be successive prime numbers. It follows that $q$ must be a composite number.
- 26,769
-
-
@coffeemath - I'm sort of curious. What is the difference between consecutive and successive prime numbers? – Steven Alexis Gregory Feb 22 '18 at 04:11
-
steven-- I don't know of a commonly used distinction between those terms. But I'd say it must just mean no primes between the two... – coffeemath Feb 22 '18 at 08:41
-
@coffeemath - Sorry about that. I'm bit ticked because I can't understand why my response "does not provide an answer to the question". – Steven Alexis Gregory Feb 22 '18 at 09:16
-
steven I believe at the time your answer first appeared (at least at my loction) it didn't have things as "spelled out" as they are now. – coffeemath Feb 22 '18 at 10:05