\[\nexists~a,b\in\Bbb Z^+~(a\neq b)~\mid~a+x\in\Bbb P\iff b+x\in\Bbb P~\forall~x\in\Bbb Z_{\geq 0}\]
Prove the statement above.
Details and Assumptions :
- P denotes the set of all prime numbers.
- Z+ denotes the set of all positive integers.
- Z≥0=Z+∪{0} denotes the set of all non-negative integers.
Source : Math StackExchange
#NumberTheory
#PrimeNumbers
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
Seems simple if you use contradiction.
Suppose there does exist such an a and b. WLOG, let a>b, and a−b=d. Now let p be the smallest prime such that p>a.
Then, by induction,we can prove all p+nd for all natural numbers n.
This implies that in every set of d consecutive integers, starting from an integer larger than p, we can find at least one prime.
But this is not true for the set k(d+1)!+2,k(d+1)!+3,...k(d+1)!+(d+1), in which all elements are composite, and the first element is larger than p by taking some suitable k. Hence, we have a contradiction.
Log in to reply
Yes, that is the intended proof. +1
However, you can cut the proof short by taking n=p which would result in us getting that p+pd=p(1+d) is prime. Contradiction.
The result follows.
Hey seniors and respected professionals, please do comment in this note. I see that nowadays the scope of Brilliant has been limited to just JEE syllabus and Olympiad Mathematics, please try to promote Higher Mathematics too.
Log in to reply
This problem might well fit into the Olympiad math style actually. There's a really elegant proof (by contradiction) of this that uses just elementary mathematical induction.
Log in to reply
Really? Cool then..