Consecutive twin primes

A friend gives you a sequence of three prime numbers which he tells you are of the form {p, p + 2, p + 4}.

Assuming he is telling the truth, what is the most we can deduce about the sequence of primes?

.

.

Hint: What is the same about all sufficiently large primes modulo 6?

We can deduce that p < 5. This leads to a contradiction, meaning that your friend is a LIAR. We can can deduce the values of each prime number in the list. We can deduce that p < Sk1(Skewes Number). We can deduce that zeta(1/2 + ip) = 0 We can deduce that their sum is a composite number.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

2 solutions

Casey Appleton
Mar 10, 2019

The special thing about all prime numbers greater than or equal to 5 is that they can all be written as 6n + 1 or 6n -1 for some natural number n. This can be proven since 6n - 1 can be written as 6n + 5, and all other natural numbers would be of the form 6n, 6n + 2, 6n + 3, or 6n + 4, which are all composite. Using this we now rewrite the sequence as {6n+1, 6n+3, 6n+5} and also as {6n - 1, 6n + 1, 6n + 3}. But clearly 6n + 3 must be composite! This means that if this sequence of primes were to exist, p would have to be less than 5. So of the primes 2 and 3, we discover that the prime 3 does in fact satisfy that 3 + 2 and 3 + 4 are prime numbers. So we can deduce that the sequence he has given us must be {3, 5, 7}.

Mr. India
Mar 11, 2019

3 3 is the only prime divisible by 3 3 .

Case 1 : Let's assume that p p gives 1 1 as remainder when divided by 3 3

p = 3 m + 1 p=3m+1

p + 2 = 3 m + 1 + 2 = 3 ( m + 1 ) p+2=3m+1+2=3(m+1)

So, p + 2 p+2 is a prime and divisible by 3 3

Then, p + 2 p+2 must be 3 3

So, p = 1 p=1 but it isn't prime. So, p 2 , 0 ( m o d 3 ) p \equiv 2,0\pmod{3}

Case 2 : p p gives remainder 2 2 when divided by 3 3

p = 3 n + 2 p=3n+2

p + 4 = 3 n + 2 + 4 = 3 ( n + 2 ) p+4=3n+2+4=3(n+2)

So, p + 4 = 3 p+4=3 or p = 1 p=-1

This isn't possible.

So, we must say that p 0 ( m o d 3 ) p \equiv 0\pmod{3}

p = 3 x p=3x and as it is prime,

p = 3 p=3

So we get the numbers as 3 , 5 , 7 \boxed{3,5,7}

1 pending report

Vote up reports you agree with

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...