1

How would you show that not every number of the form $N = (p_1 p_2 p_3 \cdots p_n) + 1$ is prime, where $p_1, p_2, p_3,...,p_n$ is the list of all prime numbers?

I have tried several proof techniques including the proof of infinitely many primes but to no avail. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

DYBnor
  • 357

1 Answers1

5

You could just do it by counterexample. The Euclid numbers are the numbers of the form $p_n\#+1$, where $p\#$ denotes the "primorial" (the product of the primes less than or equal to $p$). These are exactly what you desire in form: $p_n$ denotes the $n^{th}$ prime in this context.

The first composite Euclid number is the sixth one:

$$p_6\# +1 = 13\# + 1 = 30031 = 59 \times 509$$

PrincessEev
  • 43,815
  • @ Evee Trainer, I am a bit confused. How can you use counterexample when the statement has got 'not' in it.? In am thinking in this case $p_6$# + 1 confirms the statement. – DYBnor Mar 04 '20 at 11:01
  • @DYBnor It's a counterexample to the claim that all numbers of the form $p_n#+1$ are prime. So it's an example that proves your claim. It just depends on which angle you look at the problem. Mostly, you'd phrase this type of conjecture as "proposition X is true for all $n$". – Jam Mar 04 '20 at 11:07