Is the conjecture about prime numbers true?












4












$begingroup$


Let $p_n$ be the $n$-th prime number.
Is it true that if $n$ is sufficiently large then will $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$ always be a composite number?






prime-numbers prime-factorization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Almost certainly, the answer is not known.
    $endgroup$
    – quasi
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:23






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    It certainly doesn't have ${p_1,cdots, p_n}$ as factors. This construction was used by Euclid to prove that there are infinitely many primes.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:24










  • $begingroup$
    You should precise if your question is about the first or the second of these two statements: 1) There is a natural number $N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite for every $nge N$. 2) For every natural number $N$ there is some $nge N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite. Nevertheless, as @quasi has said, the answer is probably not known in either case.
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:24








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is an open question in number theory. Heuristically, if anything, "Euclid numbers" are more likely than a random nearby number to be prime as noted by @Doug oeis.org/A014545 oeis.org/A006862
    $endgroup$
    – David Diaz
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:32












  • $begingroup$
    @DavidDiaz I didn't mean to suggest that $(p_1times cdots times p_n) + 1$ is necessarily prime. The construction merely proves that for any finite list of numbers, there exists a number co-prime to all all them. And any finite list of prime numbers does not include all prime numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:40
















4












$begingroup$


Let $p_n$ be the $n$-th prime number.
Is it true that if $n$ is sufficiently large then will $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$ always be a composite number?






prime-numbers prime-factorization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Almost certainly, the answer is not known.
    $endgroup$
    – quasi
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:23






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    It certainly doesn't have ${p_1,cdots, p_n}$ as factors. This construction was used by Euclid to prove that there are infinitely many primes.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:24










  • $begingroup$
    You should precise if your question is about the first or the second of these two statements: 1) There is a natural number $N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite for every $nge N$. 2) For every natural number $N$ there is some $nge N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite. Nevertheless, as @quasi has said, the answer is probably not known in either case.
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:24








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is an open question in number theory. Heuristically, if anything, "Euclid numbers" are more likely than a random nearby number to be prime as noted by @Doug oeis.org/A014545 oeis.org/A006862
    $endgroup$
    – David Diaz
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:32












  • $begingroup$
    @DavidDiaz I didn't mean to suggest that $(p_1times cdots times p_n) + 1$ is necessarily prime. The construction merely proves that for any finite list of numbers, there exists a number co-prime to all all them. And any finite list of prime numbers does not include all prime numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:40














4












4








4


1



$begingroup$


Let $p_n$ be the $n$-th prime number.
Is it true that if $n$ is sufficiently large then will $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$ always be a composite number?






prime-numbers prime-factorization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $p_n$ be the $n$-th prime number.
Is it true that if $n$ is sufficiently large then will $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$ always be a composite number?






prime-numbers prime-factorization




prime-numbers prime-factorization






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jun 14 '18 at 10:35







user569084

















asked Jun 13 '18 at 18:17









user569084user569084

513




513








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Almost certainly, the answer is not known.
    $endgroup$
    – quasi
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:23






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    It certainly doesn't have ${p_1,cdots, p_n}$ as factors. This construction was used by Euclid to prove that there are infinitely many primes.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:24










  • $begingroup$
    You should precise if your question is about the first or the second of these two statements: 1) There is a natural number $N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite for every $nge N$. 2) For every natural number $N$ there is some $nge N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite. Nevertheless, as @quasi has said, the answer is probably not known in either case.
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:24








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is an open question in number theory. Heuristically, if anything, "Euclid numbers" are more likely than a random nearby number to be prime as noted by @Doug oeis.org/A014545 oeis.org/A006862
    $endgroup$
    – David Diaz
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:32












  • $begingroup$
    @DavidDiaz I didn't mean to suggest that $(p_1times cdots times p_n) + 1$ is necessarily prime. The construction merely proves that for any finite list of numbers, there exists a number co-prime to all all them. And any finite list of prime numbers does not include all prime numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:40














  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Almost certainly, the answer is not known.
    $endgroup$
    – quasi
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:23






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    It certainly doesn't have ${p_1,cdots, p_n}$ as factors. This construction was used by Euclid to prove that there are infinitely many primes.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:24










  • $begingroup$
    You should precise if your question is about the first or the second of these two statements: 1) There is a natural number $N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite for every $nge N$. 2) For every natural number $N$ there is some $nge N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite. Nevertheless, as @quasi has said, the answer is probably not known in either case.
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:24








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is an open question in number theory. Heuristically, if anything, "Euclid numbers" are more likely than a random nearby number to be prime as noted by @Doug oeis.org/A014545 oeis.org/A006862
    $endgroup$
    – David Diaz
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:32












  • $begingroup$
    @DavidDiaz I didn't mean to suggest that $(p_1times cdots times p_n) + 1$ is necessarily prime. The construction merely proves that for any finite list of numbers, there exists a number co-prime to all all them. And any finite list of prime numbers does not include all prime numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jun 13 '18 at 18:40








4




4




$begingroup$
Almost certainly, the answer is not known.
$endgroup$
– quasi
Jun 13 '18 at 18:23




$begingroup$
Almost certainly, the answer is not known.
$endgroup$
– quasi
Jun 13 '18 at 18:23




3




3




$begingroup$
It certainly doesn't have ${p_1,cdots, p_n}$ as factors. This construction was used by Euclid to prove that there are infinitely many primes.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jun 13 '18 at 18:24




$begingroup$
It certainly doesn't have ${p_1,cdots, p_n}$ as factors. This construction was used by Euclid to prove that there are infinitely many primes.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jun 13 '18 at 18:24












$begingroup$
You should precise if your question is about the first or the second of these two statements: 1) There is a natural number $N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite for every $nge N$. 2) For every natural number $N$ there is some $nge N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite. Nevertheless, as @quasi has said, the answer is probably not known in either case.
$endgroup$
– ajotatxe
Jun 13 '18 at 18:24






$begingroup$
You should precise if your question is about the first or the second of these two statements: 1) There is a natural number $N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite for every $nge N$. 2) For every natural number $N$ there is some $nge N$ such that $p_1cdotldotscdot p_n+1$ is composite. Nevertheless, as @quasi has said, the answer is probably not known in either case.
$endgroup$
– ajotatxe
Jun 13 '18 at 18:24






2




2




$begingroup$
This is an open question in number theory. Heuristically, if anything, "Euclid numbers" are more likely than a random nearby number to be prime as noted by @Doug oeis.org/A014545 oeis.org/A006862
$endgroup$
– David Diaz
Jun 13 '18 at 18:32






$begingroup$
This is an open question in number theory. Heuristically, if anything, "Euclid numbers" are more likely than a random nearby number to be prime as noted by @Doug oeis.org/A014545 oeis.org/A006862
$endgroup$
– David Diaz
Jun 13 '18 at 18:32














$begingroup$
@DavidDiaz I didn't mean to suggest that $(p_1times cdots times p_n) + 1$ is necessarily prime. The construction merely proves that for any finite list of numbers, there exists a number co-prime to all all them. And any finite list of prime numbers does not include all prime numbers.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jun 13 '18 at 18:40




$begingroup$
@DavidDiaz I didn't mean to suggest that $(p_1times cdots times p_n) + 1$ is necessarily prime. The construction merely proves that for any finite list of numbers, there exists a number co-prime to all all them. And any finite list of prime numbers does not include all prime numbers.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jun 13 '18 at 18:40










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

I tried my best to explain why we always get a composite number.



Case 1: if these primes are arrange in ascending order and $p_1$ is 3 than:
$$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$
is always a composite number as product of $n_th$ odd numbers (here primes) will always odd and adding 1 makes it even.



Case 2: if we take $p_n$ as 2 than $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$



will never be an even number as ($p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n$) will be even and adding 1 makes it odd.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2818581%2fis-the-conjecture-about-prime-numbers-true%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    I tried my best to explain why we always get a composite number.



    Case 1: if these primes are arrange in ascending order and $p_1$ is 3 than:
    $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$
    is always a composite number as product of $n_th$ odd numbers (here primes) will always odd and adding 1 makes it even.



    Case 2: if we take $p_n$ as 2 than $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$



    will never be an even number as ($p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n$) will be even and adding 1 makes it odd.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      I tried my best to explain why we always get a composite number.



      Case 1: if these primes are arrange in ascending order and $p_1$ is 3 than:
      $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$
      is always a composite number as product of $n_th$ odd numbers (here primes) will always odd and adding 1 makes it even.



      Case 2: if we take $p_n$ as 2 than $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$



      will never be an even number as ($p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n$) will be even and adding 1 makes it odd.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        I tried my best to explain why we always get a composite number.



        Case 1: if these primes are arrange in ascending order and $p_1$ is 3 than:
        $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$
        is always a composite number as product of $n_th$ odd numbers (here primes) will always odd and adding 1 makes it even.



        Case 2: if we take $p_n$ as 2 than $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$



        will never be an even number as ($p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n$) will be even and adding 1 makes it odd.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        I tried my best to explain why we always get a composite number.



        Case 1: if these primes are arrange in ascending order and $p_1$ is 3 than:
        $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$
        is always a composite number as product of $n_th$ odd numbers (here primes) will always odd and adding 1 makes it even.



        Case 2: if we take $p_n$ as 2 than $$p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n+1$$



        will never be an even number as ($p_1×p_2×p_3×...×p_n$) will be even and adding 1 makes it odd.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:44









        DynamoDynamo

        104517




        104517






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2818581%2fis-the-conjecture-about-prime-numbers-true%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Image
            Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
            Read more

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
            Read more

            Mont Emei

            Image
            Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
            Read more