How many primes will not be found from prime $p=a+b$ and prime producing formulae $a\cdot p+b$ and $b\cdot p+a$? An example for $11=2+9$ gives $2\cdot 11+9=31$ and $9\cdot 11+2=101$. Is there a maximum prime that will not be found? The larger the prime, the more numbers produced, $p-1$ of them; so it seems inevitable that all but a few primes will not be found. Do you agree?
-
2I don't understand. Are you fixing $p$? Are you fixing $p$ as well as $a$ and $b$? In either case, you only get a finite number of numbers out of $ap+b$ or $bp+a$. Did you mean to write something like $ak+b$ or $pk+b$ where $k$ is allowed to vary over the integers? (or another option, do you fix $p$, allow $a$ and $b$ to vary over all the integers, not just positive ones?) – Ovi Jan 06 '19 at 21:45
-
@Ovi So indeed "all but a few primes will not be found" ... – Hagen von Eitzen Jan 06 '19 at 21:53
-
Continuing with all partitions of 11: 1+10, 2+9, 3+8, 4+7, and 5+6; these pairs are now the pairs a +b and p=11 for the ten numbers to be found. When p=13, the pairs to be tested are 1+12, 2+11, 3+10, 4+9, 5+8, and 6+7 to give 13-1=12 new numbers to be tested. Of course, repetitions do occur from different primes. What will be the largest prime NOT found by this method? I did not find 11. – J. M. Bergot Jan 06 '19 at 21:55
-
@HagenvonEitzen I think, under the most straightforward interpretation, all but a few primes will not be found. – Ovi Jan 06 '19 at 21:55
-
You will find two numbers, $ap + b$ and $bp + a$. zero, one or two will be prime. So you will either: not find any prime, not find any prime but one, or not find any prime but two. It's hard to tell what you are asking. – fleablood Jan 06 '19 at 22:08
-
Again, some primes will be discovered in many different ways. What are the primes that will never be found with this method? Is there a largest one? That's the question. – J. M. Bergot Jan 06 '19 at 22:10
-
Half of the numbers $a\cdot p+b$ and $b\cdot p+a$ are not prime. – Daniel Mathias Jan 06 '19 at 22:20
-
2Do some experiments to see how many are prime as p increases. – J. M. Bergot Jan 06 '19 at 22:25
-
@J.M.Bergot If the only primes you find which don't work are the ones associated with Sophie Germain primes, or if there are very few other such ones, then perhaps a more interesting question will be whether or not there is a maximum such other prime which can't be found. – John Omielan Jan 07 '19 at 01:12
-
@J.M.Bergot I realized later, checked and confirmed, then updated my answer to show that primes of form 4q + 1, where q is prime, also don't work except for q = 3. In addition, there are other types of primes which will likely not work sometimes, especially for larger primes. – John Omielan Jan 07 '19 at 07:04
1 Answers
If I understand what you're asking correctly, then the answer to your main question is almost definitely no, there is no maximum prime that will not be found. First, let me state a few things I am assuming here. First, the $a$ and $b$ are meant to be non-negative integers. Second, note that you don't need to check both $ap + b$ and $bp + a$ since if $p = a + b$, then $p = b + a$ also, so each check would be duplicated. As such, I will just only consider all possible $ap + b$. Replacing $b$ with $p - a$ gives
$$ap + \left(p - a\right) = \left(a + 1\right)p - \left(a + 1\right) + 1 \tag{1}\label{eq1}$$
Now, you are asking to check for $a$ going from $1$ to $p - 1$, inclusive. I will replace $a + 1$ with $c$, with it going from $2$ to $p$, inclusive, to get
$$cp - c + 1 = c\left(p - 1\right) + 1 \tag{2}\label{eq2}$$
Among the primes to check, consider the Sophie Germain primes, i.e., which are primes $q$ where $2q + 1$ is also a prime. Assume there is a $c \ge 2$ and $p$ which allows \eqref{eq2} to be equal to $2q + 1$. This then gives
$$2q + 1 = c\left(p - 1\right) + 1 \tag{3}\label{eq3}$$
which simplifies to
$$2q = c\left(p - 1\right) \tag{4}\label{eq4}$$
Now, if $p = 2$, then $2q = c$, but $2 \le c \le p$, so $c = 2$ is the only value, resulting in $q = 1$, which is not prime. For $p \gt 2$, $p$ is odd and so must be of the form $2n + 1$ for some positive integer $n$. Thus, $p - 1 = 2n$, with \eqref{eq4} now becoming
$$q = cn \tag{5}\label{eq5}$$
However, with $q$ being a prime, then $q = c$ and $n = 1$, or $q = n$ and $c = 1$. Since $c \ge 2$, as stated earlier, this requires that $c = q$ and $n = 1$. This means that just $p = 3$ can possibly work, giving the only Sophie Germain primes your algorithm creates being $2$, with $5 = 3 \times 1 + 2$, plus $3$, with $7 = 3 \times 2 + 1$. All other primes coming from Sophie Germain primes, starting with $5$ where $11 = 2 \times 5 + 1$ as you have noticed yourself, will not work!
It's an unproven conjecture that there are an infinite # of Sophie Germain primes. However, I believe it's likely true as it would be an very unusual property of primes, IMHO, for the set of these primes to be finite.
There also other types of primes which generally will not work. Consider, for example, where both $q$ and $4q + 1$ are primes. I'm not aware of any general name for these types of primes. Anyway, \eqref{eq5} then becomes
$$2q = cn \tag{6}\label{eq6}$$
As before, $q$ must divide $c$ or $n$. If it divides $c$, then $c = q$ and $n = 2$, which means $p = 5$, with the only $q$ which works being $3$, giving the prime to create being $13 = 4 \times 3 + 1$ and, from your algorithm, $13 = 2 \times 5 + 3$. If $q$ doesn't divide $c$, then it must divide $n$, so $q = n$ and $c = 2$. However, this means that $p = 2n + 1 = 2q + 1$. But this can't be true in general as it means that $q$, $2q + 1$ and $4q + 1$ must all be prime simultaneously. To see this, if $q$ is not $3$, then $q \equiv 1 \pmod 3$ (with $2q + 1 \equiv 0 \pmod 3$ in this case) or $q \equiv 2 \pmod 3$ (with $4q + 1 \equiv 0 \pmod 3$ in this other case). As such, only $q = 3$ works. There are also undoubtedly an infinite number of cases where both $q$ and $4q + 1$ are prime, starting with $7$ and $29$, so this is another set of values which won't work for you.
Consider more generally where $q$ and $2dq + 1$ are prime, for some fixed integer $d \gt 2$. Using analysis similar to what I've done above will result in at least relatively stringent requirements (especially for smaller $d$) which may allow many values to work, but I suspect there will also be quite a few cases that don't, especially for larger $q$. As such, unfortunately, it seems there are a quite few other types of primes, other than just those associated with Sophie Germain ones, that won't work with your algorithm.
- 47,976
-
Take a look at p=11 to see that ALL ten must be checked--there are NO duplicates for the p=a+b since a and b have different positions in the formula. Begin with 1 and 10 to get 21 and 111; 2 and 9 to get 31 and 101; 3 and 8 to get 41 and 91; 4 and 7 to get 51 and 81; 5 and 6 to get 61 and 71. NO duplicates result. I'll check your remark about Germain primes. – J. M. Bergot Jan 07 '19 at 00:06
-
@J.M.Bergot I agree that ALL ten must be checked. I just stated you did not check both $ap + b$ and $bp + a$ as the set of values which $ap + b$ generates is the same as $bp + a$, just in the opposite order. With $p = 11$, if you check both, there will be $20$ values to check, but only $10$ of them. However, I see what you're doing now. You assume that $a \lt b$, which you didn't state. This is basically the same as what I did, except that the values are checked in a somewhat different order, but the set of values themselves are still the same. – John Omielan Jan 07 '19 at 00:08
-
Yes, we agree that there will be p-1 different terms produced. I am at a public library and am NOT used to thinking when others are around-->leads to mistakes. I did some figuring with a humble calculator but did not look for Germain primes. Maybe none were found; I didn't bring my notes. I bit of a puzzle would be to find what primes produced can be found in many,many different ways depending on a variety of p's. A computer could be used as an electric space heater for winter work. – J. M. Bergot Jan 07 '19 at 00:13
-
The next Sophie Germain prime is $11$, with $23 = 2 \times 11 + 1$, which I noticed was the next prime not produced when I manually checked your algorithm. You can verify this yourself fairly easily, including the next one or two Sophie Germain primes of $23$ (so check $47$) and $29$ (so check $59$). Note I haven't checked to see if any other types of primes are missed, but there may be. – John Omielan Jan 07 '19 at 00:16
-
I keep forgetting to use this gizmo.. I sent this into primepuzzles.net to see if anyone wants to experiment to find primes not to be found. If there are others beside Germains, then something new has been found. The library closes soon-->I'll leave for the day. ThaNXXX FOR YOUR W ORK.. – J. M. Bergot Jan 07 '19 at 00:22
-
I just noticed that, technically, the Sophie Germain primes are the $q$ I mentioned above, not $2q + 1$. I have adjusted my comment above & my answer accordingly. – John Omielan Jan 07 '19 at 00:22
-
@J.M.Bergot You are welcome for the help. If you find any primes other than those created from Sophie Germain primes which don't work with your algorithm, please post it here so that I, and anybody else interested, will know. Thanks. – John Omielan Jan 07 '19 at 00:24
-
I saw your latest with q and 4*q+1 both being primes. One wonders if a great amount of primes NOT found could lead to empirical conclusions about guaranteed failures. Is math software capable of finding WHY some numbers are NOT to be found? – J. M. Bergot Jan 08 '19 at 18:46
-
@J.M.Bergot There are certain types of primes which your procedure will not find, as I indicated. For primes which are larger multiples of primes plus 1, some will & some won't be found. The # of cases to consider will generally grow with these multiples, so it'll become more complicated, but in theory it'll always be predictable, although in practice it'll start to become unwieldy quite quickly. As for WHY this happens in general, like most other aspects of primes, including fairly simple questions like twin primes & Goldbach's conjecture, not enough primes structure is known to answer them. – John Omielan Jan 09 '19 at 01:42
-
I bit of experimenting leads to 2dq+1 will work sometime work if either d or q IS a Germain prime. Since all 2prime - 1 have solutions, 457-1 = =8319 and 313-1 = 83*13 and NO Germains in either. If all this does reduce itself to many, many maybes, a project would be to find how many successes can be found for each prime with n digits and compare the percentages within each such divisions. The more digits, the more successes? – J. M. Bergot Jan 09 '19 at 18:29
-
@J.M.Bergot I'm not sure how the percentage of available primes being found changes as you increase the size, but I suspect it will slowly increase. Appropriate analysis could help answer this, although writing a program & checking may potentially be faster & easier, plus it can give more specific results than any general analysis. – John Omielan Jan 09 '19 at 20:40
-
I guess what is needed is someone with powerful curiosity and a desire for programming virtuoso to attack this beast with statistical questions. When dealing with primes, one thinks of wondering which galaxy contains a planet with advanced life forms; it could be here or it could be there. Who knows? – J. M. Bergot Jan 10 '19 at 21:08