Showing posts with label prime numbers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prime numbers. Show all posts

11.01.2022

Square of prime numbers

 

Unity makes strength! However, what to unite and what to achieve?

Could we add prime numbers to get a square? But still have some order and try to join (collect) consecutive prime numbers.

Naturally, we start with 2, which is clearly not a square, so we add 3 to it. We get 5, which is still not a square. We have no right to discourage, we have only just begun!

2+3+5=10 It’s not a square…

2+3+5+7=17 It’s not a square…

2+3+5+7+11=28 It’s not a square…

2+3+5+7+11+13=41 It’s not a square…

2+3+5+7+11+13+17=58 It’s not a square…

2+3+5+7+11+13+17+19=77 It’s not a square…

Maybe it's time to give up? Let's have another try!

2+3+5+7+11+13+17+19+23=100 Unbelievable! Square! Victory.

 

Sure, it was a harmless skit for fun when we're dealing with math, but here in math, things don't end with surrender after a few failed attempts. A true mathematician, if he finds no proof of the impossibility of solving the problem, searches for the solution all his life.

The important thing is that we reached the solution relatively quickly in this task. More precisely, to the first solution of countless many. Because now we have to see if we can find a square if we start not from 2 but from 3.

Now we will be shorter, because the same game this time would be quite boring: 26 consecutive prime numbers must be added to get a square.

It is interesting and encouraging that starting with the beautiful, what a beautiful, wonderful number 5, with only four numbers we get a square:

5+7+11+13=36 Magnificent!

But after this wonderful case, a real horror began. After a while I began to doubt that starting with 7 we would even be able to get to a square! But imagine (and believe me) that collecting

1862 (one thousand eight hundred and sixty two)

consecutive primes (starting with 7), you get a square!

After this frenzied trial I felt confident in formulating (probably for the first time) the epoch-making hypothesis that for every prime there exists a corresponding number such that the sequence of primes beginning with the prime in question and having a number equal to the corresponding number. Simply put, the above problem always has a solution.

This hypothesis was supported (but not proven) by a small program (in Python). The following table shows the "corresponding" number for the first 24 prime numbers. (Over time it will be supplemented, but at the moment the program is stuck on one new "week".)

 

2 – 9

3 – 23

5 – 4

7 – 1862

11 – 14

13 – 3

17 – 2

19 – 211

23 – 331

29 – 163

31 – 366

37 – 3

41 – 124

43 – 48

47 – 2

53 – 449

59 – 8403

61 – 121

67 – 35

71 – 2

73 – 4

79 – 105

83 – 77

89 – 43

 

Which is extremely interesting: how "strangely" the corresponding numbers jump. There is apparently incredible chaos with these prime numbers.

Another interesting thing, I would even say: it is surprising that in quite a few cases it is enough to add the next one to the prime number and the square is ready (corresponding number 2)! This feature intrigued me, and the same loop-backed program quickly produced an impressive list of such half-square primes:

 

17, 47, 71, 283, 881, 1151, 1913, 2591, 3527, 4049, 6047, 7193, 7433, 15137, 20807, 21617, 24197, 26903, 28793, 34847, 46817, 53129, 56443, 69191, 74489, 83231, 84047, 98563, 103049, 103967, 109507, 110441, 112337, 136237, 149057, 151247, 176417, 179999, 198439, 204797, 206081, 235289, 273797, 281249, 290317, 293357, 310463, 321593, 362951, 383683, 388961, 423191, 438047, 470447, 472391, 478241

 

 


* * *

 

10.23.2020

Primes - four conjectures

 

We consider prime numbers, rightly, as elementary particles of all numbers. Meanwhile, the situation is that we know (almost) everything about numbers, very precisely, but we have only “empirical” knowledge and various hypotheses about prime numbers themselves that can only be obtained by calculations. It is as if something is blocking the paths of omnipotent theoretical research to the mystical primes. Although this is another topic (which you will want to return to.)

We would now consider four related hypotheses giving to this some “empirical” statements.

A well-known concept is the twin prime. Here, care must be taken that the term itself can be applied to both a number and a pair of numbers, and this requires attention. So, an n number is a twin prime if prime and either n-2 or n+2 is prime also. That is, there is another prime “near” n. Two numbers n and m are twin primes or twin prime pairs if both are prime and n-m=2 or m-n=2. The topic and wordings can be complicated by the strange beginning of the primes (2, 3, 5, 7). This “weird start” is also a separate topic (which is also worth returning to). Now we can do this by counting the twin prime numbers from 5 onwards. And indeed, the first “regular” twin pairs: (5,7), (11,13), (17,19), and so on.

Well, these twin primes are of huge interest, many deal with them, you can read a lot about them. But what are non-twin prime numbers like? Many times, if there is a highlighted subset, there may be several others besides it, but this is not the case here (but like the concept of an even number: if a number is not even, it is odd, and that’s it). Indeed, if there is no other prime “near” a prime number, then there is not, and that is it. It seems legitimate to call such primes alone or lonely. That is, not every prime or twin, or lonely, third case. The first reflexive question in arithmetic is that there are an infinite number of these? Well, let's not wait for a theoretical, demonstrable result. However, we can have a hypothesis.

 

H1 (Small twin prime hypothesis) There are infinitely many twin primes.

 

H2 (Small one-prime hypothesis) There are infinitely many one-primes.

 

The first hypothesis has been known for a long time, it must have been formulated when we first talked about twin primes. All that can be added is that many have tried to prove it, and often partial results are reported (a partial result of the siege of an old girl may also be that she is already half-virgin, but here we are still far from it). The question, however, is really interesting because the statement can by no means be said to be obvious.

In contrast, questioning Hypothesis H2 would be pure absurdity. Anyone can rightly say: this statement is infinitely trivial. Indeed. At a glance. But let me prove it! I find the proof of this statement as hopeless as that of H1, and that is why it deserves the status of a written hypothesis. In the meantime, I do not rule out that this was first described in this form.

Now let’s move on to examining these two animal species.

An obvious and legitimate question is: if these two kinds of prime numbers va, and presumably there are infinitely many of both, how are they distributed? It immediately becomes apparent that the twins are starting strongly: the six primes starting with 5 are all twins, but they are also in good numbers when viewed up to 100. First, however, let us note that, except for the departure curiosity, where 3, 5, and 7 are no three consecutive twins, triple twins, which is - easily - provable.

 

Lemma 1. If p > 3 and p and p + 2 are prime, p + 4 is not prime.

 

As a result, you need to “rest” after each pair of twin primes. All right, come the rest, but the rest alone does not decide whether it is followed by a twin or a single. For example, after 7 there is a twin, after 19 there is single. There is nothing surprising in this that twin prime pairs can form groups. It is not too difficult to map these. This way we can create sequences that identify (with their first member) the different groups. A more difficult question is how large these groups can be. It is quite understandable that the larger such groups we search for, the less often we find such. And here the difficulties arise surprisingly quickly. Even the discovery of groups of 5 pairs of twin primes requires effective computer assistance. Currently, the research competition is stuck in groups of 10. Sure, we cannot doubt that our ever-growing computers are making further progress, discovering groups 11 and 12, but the members of these are already inconceivable numbers.

Yet, the human mind does not reach that much. The question is: for any n numbers, is there a group containing n pairs of twin primes? Let's not expect a theoretical result for this either, but let us also have the courage to formulate the third hypothesis:

 

H3 (Big Twin Hypothesis) For any natural n number, there exists an n-member group of prime pairs.

 

Before we go any further, let’s take a look at some of the series related here

Starting numbers of twin prime pairs:

3, 5, 11, 17, 29, 41, 59, 71, 101, 107, 137, 149, 179, 191, 197, 227, 239, 269, 281, 311, 347, 419, 431, 461, 521, 569, 599, 617, 641, 659, 809, 821, 827, 857, 881, 1019, 1031, 1049, 1061, 1091, 1151, 1229, 1277, 1289, 1301, 1319, 1427, 1451, 1481, 1487, 1607 (A001359)

 

Starting numbers for twin-pair groups:

5, 11, 101, 137, 179, 191, 419, 809, 821, 1019, 1049, 1481, 1871, 1931, 2081, 2111, 2969, 3251, 3359, 3371, 3461, 4217, 4229, 4259, 5009, 5651, 5867, 6689, 6761, 6779, 6947, 7331, 7547 (A053778)

 

Summary - Starting numbers for n-member twin-pair groups:

3, 5, 5, 9419, 909287, 325267931, 678771479, 1107819732821, 170669145704411, 3324648277099157 (A111950, In 2011, Gábor Lévai announced that he had found a group of 11)

 

Now let’s turn our attention to the somewhat marginalized single primes. First, let's say the fourth promised hypothesis:

 

H4 (Big one-prime hypothesis) For any n natural numbers there exists a n-member one-prime group.

 

Undoubtedly, this is an “obvious” statement like H2, but here it can be said that it does not seem to be formally provable. Nevertheless, here we can make calculations similar to twin primes, which are somewhat less common in the literature for single primes.

 

The single primes:

23, 37, 47, 53, 67, 79, 83, 89, 97, 113, 127, 131, 157, 163, 167, 173, 211, 223, 233, 251, 257, 263, 277, 293, 307, 317, 331, 337, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 439, 443, 449, 457, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 541, 547, 557, 563 (A007510, although this - in my humble opinion - incorrectly includes 2 as well)

 

Starting number of double single prime groups:

47, 79, 83, 89, 113, 127, 157, 163, 167, 211, 251, 257, 293, 317, 331, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 439, 443, 449, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 541, 547, 557, 577, 587, 607, 647 (A126095)

 

And for the summary of single-prime groups, i.e., the starting number of n-membered single-prime groups:

23, 47, 79, 79, 353, 353, 353, 353, 353, 673, 673, 673, 673, 673, 673, 673, 673, 8641

 

Before concluding on this topic, I would like to point out a useful fact. To do this, define two concepts: if p is a prime number, we call foreground the difference between p and the previous prime, the background is the differences between the following prime and p, denoting them FG(p), resp. BG(p). Example: , FG(13) = 2 and BG(13) = 4

Obviously:

 

Lemma 2. For any prime p greater than 3, FG(p) and BG(p) are even numbers.

 

The following is less trivial, but very useful:

 

Lemma 3. For any prime p, if , FG(p) = BG(p), then this number is 6 or some multiple of it.

 

The distribution of the two types of primes is best shown in the following series, where the numbers are the “isolation index” of the primes, which is the minimum of FG(p) -1 and BG(p) -1, i.e. the smaller of the number of composites before and the number of the composites after p. It follows that (with the exception of 3) a prime is a twin prime if and only if it has an isolation index of 1. Otherwise, it is a solitary prime, which is more solitary the higher its isolation index.

 

0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 5, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 3, 3, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 11, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 9, 3, 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 5, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 7, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 3, 1, 1, 3, 7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 5, 3, 1, 1, 9, 1, 1, 3, 5, 1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 7, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 9, 9, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 9, 3, 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 7, 7, 3, 3, 5, 5, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 3, 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 7, 7, 5, 5, 5, 7, 3, 3, 5,

 



* * *