This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
I'm not sure if there will be a formula for the lowest possible terms for a given n. As you point out 8,9,10 are the lowest for n=3. For n=2 it would be 8,9, (which matches the sequence I mentioned above). For n=4 it would be 24,25,26,27 and for n=5 it would be 24,25,26,27,28. For n=6 it would be 90,91,92,93,94,95 and for n=7 it would be 90,91,92,93,94,95,96.
Since prime gaps for primes in excess os 2 are multiples of 2 we will find that the lowest sequences for n=2k and n=2k+1 will have the same lowest term. Beyond that observation, I think it would be difficult to establish any general formula since the number of consecutive composites depends on the sizes of the prime gaps, (i.e., difference between successive primes), which don't follow any identifiable pattern.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
For n≥1 consider the n-term sequence (n+1)!+2,(n+1)!+3,(n+1)!+4,.....,(n+1)!+(n+1).
Then the kth term is divisible by k+1 for 1≤k≤n, and thus all n terms are composite.
Log in to reply
Are these terms the lowest possible numbers as well? I guess no, so can we generalize them for lowest possible terms?
Log in to reply
I'm not sure if there will be a formula for the lowest possible terms for a given n. As you point out 8,9,10 are the lowest for n=3. For n=2 it would be 8,9, (which matches the sequence I mentioned above). For n=4 it would be 24,25,26,27 and for n=5 it would be 24,25,26,27,28. For n=6 it would be 90,91,92,93,94,95 and for n=7 it would be 90,91,92,93,94,95,96.
Since prime gaps for primes in excess os 2 are multiples of 2 we will find that the lowest sequences for n=2k and n=2k+1 will have the same lowest term. Beyond that observation, I think it would be difficult to establish any general formula since the number of consecutive composites depends on the sizes of the prime gaps, (i.e., difference between successive primes), which don't follow any identifiable pattern.
As if I have to find three consecutive positive composite numbers, the lowest are 8,9 and 10.
@Brian Charlesworth Sir, please help again!