From three consecutive primes 89 results from $223*211mod199$=89. Is this the largest prime remainder? For p(n)=then nth prime, the form is p(n+1)*p(n+2)modp(n)=prime.
-
What's the question? – lulu Nov 09 '18 at 18:18
-
The remainder is 89. Using the general form, can you find a larger prime remainder – J. M. Bergot Nov 09 '18 at 18:39
-
I'll ask you if you think 89 is the largest such remainder. – J. M. Bergot Nov 09 '18 at 18:43
-
1How far have you searched? If $p_{n+1},p_{n+2}$ are "fairly near" $p_n$ then of course the product will be even $\mod {p_n}$. I'd expect it to be even "most" of the time. Accordingly, any useful search would have to go pretty deep. – lulu Nov 09 '18 at 18:50
-
1It seems that you agree that 89 is the largest prime remainder. If not, one would need a few large prime gap, which may NOT exist. If nothing else, you learnt something about 89. – J. M. Bergot Nov 09 '18 at 18:54
-
So, how far have you searched? – lulu Nov 09 '18 at 18:54
-
I stopped once I found 89, then probed larger trios of consecutive primes to see that 89 will be hard to surpass. One could investigate p(n+1)p(n+2)p(n+3)mod p(n)=prime remainder. – J. M. Bergot Nov 09 '18 at 19:02
-
1A quick search did not find a larger remainder up to $p(10^7)$ – gammatester Nov 09 '18 at 19:12
-
Looks like 89 is the winner! Thanx for exercising your electrons. – J. M. Bergot Nov 09 '18 at 19:18
1 Answers
THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE ANSWER, rather an extended comment that is too long for the 'comment' section.
Consider three consecutive prime numbers $p_n,\ p_{n+1},\ p_{n+2}$ with gaps $g_1=p_{n+1}-p_n$ and $g_2=p_{n+2}-p_{n+1}$. For all $p_n>2$, $g_1$ and $g_2$ are even.
$p_{n+1}\equiv g_1\mod{p_n}$ and $p_{n+2}\equiv g_1+g_2\mod{p_n}$ so $(p_{n+1})(p_{n+2})\equiv (g_1)(g_1+g_2)\mod{p_n}$.
Unless $(g_1)(g_1+g_2)>p_n$, $(g_1)(g_1+g_2)\mod{p_n}$ will be even and hence composite (see comment by lulu). Thus as larger candidate $p_n$ are examined, it would be necessary to focus on primes separated by larger gaps.
The size of gaps is subject to limits. In general $g_1\le \alpha p_n$, or $p_{n+1}\le (1+\alpha )p_n$ and $p_{n+2}\le (1+\alpha )p_{n+1}=(1+\alpha )^2p_n\approx (1+2\alpha )p_n$. So $\max(g_1)=(1+\alpha )p_n-p_n=\alpha p_n$ and $\max((g_1+g_2))\approx(1+2\alpha )p_n-p_n=2\alpha p_n$.
Thus $\max((g_1)(g_1+g_2))\approx 2{\alpha}^2{p_n}^2$. For $(g_1)(g_1+g_2)>p_n$ it must be the case that $p_n>\frac{1}{2{\alpha}^2}$.
For numbers greater than $2\cdot 10^7$, Schoenfeld cited here has given a numerical limit $\alpha \le \frac{1}{16597}$ requiring $p_n>\frac{16597^2}{2}\approx1.3\cdot 10^8$. Other non-numeric limits on $\alpha$ are also given in the Wikipedia article, which may be even smaller than the value of Schoenfeld. Note that even if candidates with $(g_1)(g_1+g_2)>p_n$ are found, there is no guarantee that the residue generated will be prime. This suggests that very large primes (much greater than those examined by gammatester) will have to be examined in the search for a prime remainder larger than $89$.
- 7,288
-
-
For (p(n+1)-x)*(p(n+2)-x)>x for the first even number > x subtract x from this even number to see if it is prime. The gap would have to be very, very large from p(n) to p(n+1). – J. M. Bergot Nov 10 '18 at 19:17