Polynomials representing primes
$begingroup$
Suppose over $mathbb{Z}$ we are given an irreducible polynomial $p(x)$.
Can we say that at the very least that $p(x)$ represents a prime as $x$ runs through integers?
Thanks in advance.
number-theory polynomials prime-numbers
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose over $mathbb{Z}$ we are given an irreducible polynomial $p(x)$.
Can we say that at the very least that $p(x)$ represents a prime as $x$ runs through integers?
Thanks in advance.
number-theory polynomials prime-numbers
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Have you seen this?
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Jul 10 '12 at 14:27
$begingroup$
I could be wrong but I think the question is..."Does every irreducible polynomial over $mathbb{Z}$ represent at least one prime?"
$endgroup$
– fretty
Jul 10 '12 at 17:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose over $mathbb{Z}$ we are given an irreducible polynomial $p(x)$.
Can we say that at the very least that $p(x)$ represents a prime as $x$ runs through integers?
Thanks in advance.
number-theory polynomials prime-numbers
$endgroup$
Suppose over $mathbb{Z}$ we are given an irreducible polynomial $p(x)$.
Can we say that at the very least that $p(x)$ represents a prime as $x$ runs through integers?
Thanks in advance.
number-theory polynomials prime-numbers
number-theory polynomials prime-numbers
edited Dec 20 '18 at 11:33
amWhy
1
1
asked Jul 10 '12 at 14:24
user29253user29253
1463
1463
$begingroup$
Have you seen this?
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Jul 10 '12 at 14:27
$begingroup$
I could be wrong but I think the question is..."Does every irreducible polynomial over $mathbb{Z}$ represent at least one prime?"
$endgroup$
– fretty
Jul 10 '12 at 17:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have you seen this?
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Jul 10 '12 at 14:27
$begingroup$
I could be wrong but I think the question is..."Does every irreducible polynomial over $mathbb{Z}$ represent at least one prime?"
$endgroup$
– fretty
Jul 10 '12 at 17:03
$begingroup$
Have you seen this?
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Jul 10 '12 at 14:27
$begingroup$
Have you seen this?
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Jul 10 '12 at 14:27
$begingroup$
I could be wrong but I think the question is..."Does every irreducible polynomial over $mathbb{Z}$ represent at least one prime?"
$endgroup$
– fretty
Jul 10 '12 at 17:03
$begingroup$
I could be wrong but I think the question is..."Does every irreducible polynomial over $mathbb{Z}$ represent at least one prime?"
$endgroup$
– fretty
Jul 10 '12 at 17:03
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, e.g. irreducible $rm f(x), =, x(x+1)+4 $ is even but $rm:f(x) ne pm 2.$
However, such fixed divisors of all values of $rm,f,$ are essentially the only known obstruction to prime values. As motivation, let's start with a converse result. In $1918$ Stackel published the following simple observation:
Theorem If $rm, f(x),$ is a composite integer coefficient polynomial then $rm, f(n), $ is composite for all $rm,|n| > B,, $ for some bound $rm,B.,$ In fact $rm, f(n), $ has at most $rm, 2d, $ prime values, where $rm, d = {rm deg}(f)$.
The simple proof can be found online in Mott & Rose [3], p. 8.
I highly recommend this delightful and stimulating $27$ page paper
which discusses prime-producing polynomials and related topics.
Contrapositively, $rm, f(x), $ is prime (irreducible) if it assumes a prime value
for large enough $rm, |x|, $.
As an example, Polya-Szego popularized A. Cohn's irreduciblity test, which
states that $rm, f(x) in mathbb Z[x],$ is prime if $rm, f(b), $
yields a prime in radix $rm,b,$ representation (so necessarily $rm,0 le f_i < b).$
For example $rm,f(x) = x^4 + 6, x^2 + 1 pmod p,$ factors for all primes $rm,p,,$
yet $rm,f(x),$ is prime since $rm,f(8) = 10601rm$ octal $= 4481$ is prime.
Cohn's test fails if, in radix $rm,b,,$ negative digits are allowed, e.g.
$rm,f(x), =, x^3 - 9 x^2 + x-9, =, (x-9),(x^2 + 1),$ but $rm,f(10) = 101,$ is prime.
Conversely Bouniakowski conjectured $(1857)$
that prime $rm, f(x), $ assume infinitely many prime values (excluding
cases where all the values of $rm,f,$ have fixed common divisors, e.g. $rm, 2: |: x(x+1)+2, ).$ However, except for linear polynomials (Dirichlet's theorem), this conjecture has never been proved for any polynomial of degree $> 1.$
Note that a result yielding the existence of one prime value extends to existence of infinitely many prime values, for any class of polynomials closed under shifts, viz. if $rm:f(n_1):$ is prime, then $rm:g(x) = f(x+ n_1!+1):$ is prime for some $rm:x = n_2inBbb N,:$ etc.
For further detailed discussion of Bouniakowski's conjecture and related results, including heuristic and probabilistic arguments, see Chapter 6 of Ribenboim's The New Book of Prime Number Records.
[1] Bill Dubuque, sci.math 2002-11-12, On prime producing polynomials.
[2] Murty, Ram. Prime numbers and irreducible polynomials.
Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. 109 (2002), no. 5, 452-458.
[3] Mott, Joe L.; Rose, Kermit. Prime producing cubic polynomials.
Ideal theoretic methods in commutative algebra, 281-317.
Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 220, Dekker, New York, 2001.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $P(x)$ be a polynomial of degree $ge 1$, with integer coefficients, such that no $d gt 1$ divides all the coefficients.
If $P(x)$ has degree $1$, then $P$ represents at least one prime. This is a consequence of Dirichlet's Theorem on primes in arithmetic progression (and easily implies that Theorem).
As has been pointed out, for degree $ge 2$, irreducibility is not enough to ensure that a polynomial represents a prime. For some irreducible polynomials $P(x)$, there exists a $d gt 1$ such that $d$ divides $P(n)$ for every integer $n$.
However, that can only happen for relatively simple congruential reasons. So let us focus attention on polynomials $P(x)$ for which there is no such universal $d$. Unfortunately, it is an open problem whether such a polynomial must necessarily represent at least one prime.
Example: There is a good deal of evidence that there are infinitely many primes of the form $x^2+1$. However, whether or not there are infinitely many is a long-standing open problem, often called the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. If we could show that for all $ane 0$, (or even infinitely many $a$) there exists $x$ such that $(2ax)^2+1$ is prime, that would settle the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. (Conversely, the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture implies that there are infinitely many such $a$.)
So the question you raised seems to be extremely difficult even for polynomials of degree $2$!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f169066%2fpolynomials-representing-primes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, e.g. irreducible $rm f(x), =, x(x+1)+4 $ is even but $rm:f(x) ne pm 2.$
However, such fixed divisors of all values of $rm,f,$ are essentially the only known obstruction to prime values. As motivation, let's start with a converse result. In $1918$ Stackel published the following simple observation:
Theorem If $rm, f(x),$ is a composite integer coefficient polynomial then $rm, f(n), $ is composite for all $rm,|n| > B,, $ for some bound $rm,B.,$ In fact $rm, f(n), $ has at most $rm, 2d, $ prime values, where $rm, d = {rm deg}(f)$.
The simple proof can be found online in Mott & Rose [3], p. 8.
I highly recommend this delightful and stimulating $27$ page paper
which discusses prime-producing polynomials and related topics.
Contrapositively, $rm, f(x), $ is prime (irreducible) if it assumes a prime value
for large enough $rm, |x|, $.
As an example, Polya-Szego popularized A. Cohn's irreduciblity test, which
states that $rm, f(x) in mathbb Z[x],$ is prime if $rm, f(b), $
yields a prime in radix $rm,b,$ representation (so necessarily $rm,0 le f_i < b).$
For example $rm,f(x) = x^4 + 6, x^2 + 1 pmod p,$ factors for all primes $rm,p,,$
yet $rm,f(x),$ is prime since $rm,f(8) = 10601rm$ octal $= 4481$ is prime.
Cohn's test fails if, in radix $rm,b,,$ negative digits are allowed, e.g.
$rm,f(x), =, x^3 - 9 x^2 + x-9, =, (x-9),(x^2 + 1),$ but $rm,f(10) = 101,$ is prime.
Conversely Bouniakowski conjectured $(1857)$
that prime $rm, f(x), $ assume infinitely many prime values (excluding
cases where all the values of $rm,f,$ have fixed common divisors, e.g. $rm, 2: |: x(x+1)+2, ).$ However, except for linear polynomials (Dirichlet's theorem), this conjecture has never been proved for any polynomial of degree $> 1.$
Note that a result yielding the existence of one prime value extends to existence of infinitely many prime values, for any class of polynomials closed under shifts, viz. if $rm:f(n_1):$ is prime, then $rm:g(x) = f(x+ n_1!+1):$ is prime for some $rm:x = n_2inBbb N,:$ etc.
For further detailed discussion of Bouniakowski's conjecture and related results, including heuristic and probabilistic arguments, see Chapter 6 of Ribenboim's The New Book of Prime Number Records.
[1] Bill Dubuque, sci.math 2002-11-12, On prime producing polynomials.
[2] Murty, Ram. Prime numbers and irreducible polynomials.
Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. 109 (2002), no. 5, 452-458.
[3] Mott, Joe L.; Rose, Kermit. Prime producing cubic polynomials.
Ideal theoretic methods in commutative algebra, 281-317.
Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 220, Dekker, New York, 2001.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, e.g. irreducible $rm f(x), =, x(x+1)+4 $ is even but $rm:f(x) ne pm 2.$
However, such fixed divisors of all values of $rm,f,$ are essentially the only known obstruction to prime values. As motivation, let's start with a converse result. In $1918$ Stackel published the following simple observation:
Theorem If $rm, f(x),$ is a composite integer coefficient polynomial then $rm, f(n), $ is composite for all $rm,|n| > B,, $ for some bound $rm,B.,$ In fact $rm, f(n), $ has at most $rm, 2d, $ prime values, where $rm, d = {rm deg}(f)$.
The simple proof can be found online in Mott & Rose [3], p. 8.
I highly recommend this delightful and stimulating $27$ page paper
which discusses prime-producing polynomials and related topics.
Contrapositively, $rm, f(x), $ is prime (irreducible) if it assumes a prime value
for large enough $rm, |x|, $.
As an example, Polya-Szego popularized A. Cohn's irreduciblity test, which
states that $rm, f(x) in mathbb Z[x],$ is prime if $rm, f(b), $
yields a prime in radix $rm,b,$ representation (so necessarily $rm,0 le f_i < b).$
For example $rm,f(x) = x^4 + 6, x^2 + 1 pmod p,$ factors for all primes $rm,p,,$
yet $rm,f(x),$ is prime since $rm,f(8) = 10601rm$ octal $= 4481$ is prime.
Cohn's test fails if, in radix $rm,b,,$ negative digits are allowed, e.g.
$rm,f(x), =, x^3 - 9 x^2 + x-9, =, (x-9),(x^2 + 1),$ but $rm,f(10) = 101,$ is prime.
Conversely Bouniakowski conjectured $(1857)$
that prime $rm, f(x), $ assume infinitely many prime values (excluding
cases where all the values of $rm,f,$ have fixed common divisors, e.g. $rm, 2: |: x(x+1)+2, ).$ However, except for linear polynomials (Dirichlet's theorem), this conjecture has never been proved for any polynomial of degree $> 1.$
Note that a result yielding the existence of one prime value extends to existence of infinitely many prime values, for any class of polynomials closed under shifts, viz. if $rm:f(n_1):$ is prime, then $rm:g(x) = f(x+ n_1!+1):$ is prime for some $rm:x = n_2inBbb N,:$ etc.
For further detailed discussion of Bouniakowski's conjecture and related results, including heuristic and probabilistic arguments, see Chapter 6 of Ribenboim's The New Book of Prime Number Records.
[1] Bill Dubuque, sci.math 2002-11-12, On prime producing polynomials.
[2] Murty, Ram. Prime numbers and irreducible polynomials.
Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. 109 (2002), no. 5, 452-458.
[3] Mott, Joe L.; Rose, Kermit. Prime producing cubic polynomials.
Ideal theoretic methods in commutative algebra, 281-317.
Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 220, Dekker, New York, 2001.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, e.g. irreducible $rm f(x), =, x(x+1)+4 $ is even but $rm:f(x) ne pm 2.$
However, such fixed divisors of all values of $rm,f,$ are essentially the only known obstruction to prime values. As motivation, let's start with a converse result. In $1918$ Stackel published the following simple observation:
Theorem If $rm, f(x),$ is a composite integer coefficient polynomial then $rm, f(n), $ is composite for all $rm,|n| > B,, $ for some bound $rm,B.,$ In fact $rm, f(n), $ has at most $rm, 2d, $ prime values, where $rm, d = {rm deg}(f)$.
The simple proof can be found online in Mott & Rose [3], p. 8.
I highly recommend this delightful and stimulating $27$ page paper
which discusses prime-producing polynomials and related topics.
Contrapositively, $rm, f(x), $ is prime (irreducible) if it assumes a prime value
for large enough $rm, |x|, $.
As an example, Polya-Szego popularized A. Cohn's irreduciblity test, which
states that $rm, f(x) in mathbb Z[x],$ is prime if $rm, f(b), $
yields a prime in radix $rm,b,$ representation (so necessarily $rm,0 le f_i < b).$
For example $rm,f(x) = x^4 + 6, x^2 + 1 pmod p,$ factors for all primes $rm,p,,$
yet $rm,f(x),$ is prime since $rm,f(8) = 10601rm$ octal $= 4481$ is prime.
Cohn's test fails if, in radix $rm,b,,$ negative digits are allowed, e.g.
$rm,f(x), =, x^3 - 9 x^2 + x-9, =, (x-9),(x^2 + 1),$ but $rm,f(10) = 101,$ is prime.
Conversely Bouniakowski conjectured $(1857)$
that prime $rm, f(x), $ assume infinitely many prime values (excluding
cases where all the values of $rm,f,$ have fixed common divisors, e.g. $rm, 2: |: x(x+1)+2, ).$ However, except for linear polynomials (Dirichlet's theorem), this conjecture has never been proved for any polynomial of degree $> 1.$
Note that a result yielding the existence of one prime value extends to existence of infinitely many prime values, for any class of polynomials closed under shifts, viz. if $rm:f(n_1):$ is prime, then $rm:g(x) = f(x+ n_1!+1):$ is prime for some $rm:x = n_2inBbb N,:$ etc.
For further detailed discussion of Bouniakowski's conjecture and related results, including heuristic and probabilistic arguments, see Chapter 6 of Ribenboim's The New Book of Prime Number Records.
[1] Bill Dubuque, sci.math 2002-11-12, On prime producing polynomials.
[2] Murty, Ram. Prime numbers and irreducible polynomials.
Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. 109 (2002), no. 5, 452-458.
[3] Mott, Joe L.; Rose, Kermit. Prime producing cubic polynomials.
Ideal theoretic methods in commutative algebra, 281-317.
Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 220, Dekker, New York, 2001.
$endgroup$
No, e.g. irreducible $rm f(x), =, x(x+1)+4 $ is even but $rm:f(x) ne pm 2.$
However, such fixed divisors of all values of $rm,f,$ are essentially the only known obstruction to prime values. As motivation, let's start with a converse result. In $1918$ Stackel published the following simple observation:
Theorem If $rm, f(x),$ is a composite integer coefficient polynomial then $rm, f(n), $ is composite for all $rm,|n| > B,, $ for some bound $rm,B.,$ In fact $rm, f(n), $ has at most $rm, 2d, $ prime values, where $rm, d = {rm deg}(f)$.
The simple proof can be found online in Mott & Rose [3], p. 8.
I highly recommend this delightful and stimulating $27$ page paper
which discusses prime-producing polynomials and related topics.
Contrapositively, $rm, f(x), $ is prime (irreducible) if it assumes a prime value
for large enough $rm, |x|, $.
As an example, Polya-Szego popularized A. Cohn's irreduciblity test, which
states that $rm, f(x) in mathbb Z[x],$ is prime if $rm, f(b), $
yields a prime in radix $rm,b,$ representation (so necessarily $rm,0 le f_i < b).$
For example $rm,f(x) = x^4 + 6, x^2 + 1 pmod p,$ factors for all primes $rm,p,,$
yet $rm,f(x),$ is prime since $rm,f(8) = 10601rm$ octal $= 4481$ is prime.
Cohn's test fails if, in radix $rm,b,,$ negative digits are allowed, e.g.
$rm,f(x), =, x^3 - 9 x^2 + x-9, =, (x-9),(x^2 + 1),$ but $rm,f(10) = 101,$ is prime.
Conversely Bouniakowski conjectured $(1857)$
that prime $rm, f(x), $ assume infinitely many prime values (excluding
cases where all the values of $rm,f,$ have fixed common divisors, e.g. $rm, 2: |: x(x+1)+2, ).$ However, except for linear polynomials (Dirichlet's theorem), this conjecture has never been proved for any polynomial of degree $> 1.$
Note that a result yielding the existence of one prime value extends to existence of infinitely many prime values, for any class of polynomials closed under shifts, viz. if $rm:f(n_1):$ is prime, then $rm:g(x) = f(x+ n_1!+1):$ is prime for some $rm:x = n_2inBbb N,:$ etc.
For further detailed discussion of Bouniakowski's conjecture and related results, including heuristic and probabilistic arguments, see Chapter 6 of Ribenboim's The New Book of Prime Number Records.
[1] Bill Dubuque, sci.math 2002-11-12, On prime producing polynomials.
[2] Murty, Ram. Prime numbers and irreducible polynomials.
Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. 109 (2002), no. 5, 452-458.
[3] Mott, Joe L.; Rose, Kermit. Prime producing cubic polynomials.
Ideal theoretic methods in commutative algebra, 281-317.
Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 220, Dekker, New York, 2001.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
1
answered Jul 10 '12 at 14:35
Bill DubuqueBill Dubuque
211k29192645
211k29192645
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $P(x)$ be a polynomial of degree $ge 1$, with integer coefficients, such that no $d gt 1$ divides all the coefficients.
If $P(x)$ has degree $1$, then $P$ represents at least one prime. This is a consequence of Dirichlet's Theorem on primes in arithmetic progression (and easily implies that Theorem).
As has been pointed out, for degree $ge 2$, irreducibility is not enough to ensure that a polynomial represents a prime. For some irreducible polynomials $P(x)$, there exists a $d gt 1$ such that $d$ divides $P(n)$ for every integer $n$.
However, that can only happen for relatively simple congruential reasons. So let us focus attention on polynomials $P(x)$ for which there is no such universal $d$. Unfortunately, it is an open problem whether such a polynomial must necessarily represent at least one prime.
Example: There is a good deal of evidence that there are infinitely many primes of the form $x^2+1$. However, whether or not there are infinitely many is a long-standing open problem, often called the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. If we could show that for all $ane 0$, (or even infinitely many $a$) there exists $x$ such that $(2ax)^2+1$ is prime, that would settle the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. (Conversely, the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture implies that there are infinitely many such $a$.)
So the question you raised seems to be extremely difficult even for polynomials of degree $2$!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $P(x)$ be a polynomial of degree $ge 1$, with integer coefficients, such that no $d gt 1$ divides all the coefficients.
If $P(x)$ has degree $1$, then $P$ represents at least one prime. This is a consequence of Dirichlet's Theorem on primes in arithmetic progression (and easily implies that Theorem).
As has been pointed out, for degree $ge 2$, irreducibility is not enough to ensure that a polynomial represents a prime. For some irreducible polynomials $P(x)$, there exists a $d gt 1$ such that $d$ divides $P(n)$ for every integer $n$.
However, that can only happen for relatively simple congruential reasons. So let us focus attention on polynomials $P(x)$ for which there is no such universal $d$. Unfortunately, it is an open problem whether such a polynomial must necessarily represent at least one prime.
Example: There is a good deal of evidence that there are infinitely many primes of the form $x^2+1$. However, whether or not there are infinitely many is a long-standing open problem, often called the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. If we could show that for all $ane 0$, (or even infinitely many $a$) there exists $x$ such that $(2ax)^2+1$ is prime, that would settle the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. (Conversely, the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture implies that there are infinitely many such $a$.)
So the question you raised seems to be extremely difficult even for polynomials of degree $2$!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $P(x)$ be a polynomial of degree $ge 1$, with integer coefficients, such that no $d gt 1$ divides all the coefficients.
If $P(x)$ has degree $1$, then $P$ represents at least one prime. This is a consequence of Dirichlet's Theorem on primes in arithmetic progression (and easily implies that Theorem).
As has been pointed out, for degree $ge 2$, irreducibility is not enough to ensure that a polynomial represents a prime. For some irreducible polynomials $P(x)$, there exists a $d gt 1$ such that $d$ divides $P(n)$ for every integer $n$.
However, that can only happen for relatively simple congruential reasons. So let us focus attention on polynomials $P(x)$ for which there is no such universal $d$. Unfortunately, it is an open problem whether such a polynomial must necessarily represent at least one prime.
Example: There is a good deal of evidence that there are infinitely many primes of the form $x^2+1$. However, whether or not there are infinitely many is a long-standing open problem, often called the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. If we could show that for all $ane 0$, (or even infinitely many $a$) there exists $x$ such that $(2ax)^2+1$ is prime, that would settle the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. (Conversely, the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture implies that there are infinitely many such $a$.)
So the question you raised seems to be extremely difficult even for polynomials of degree $2$!
$endgroup$
Let $P(x)$ be a polynomial of degree $ge 1$, with integer coefficients, such that no $d gt 1$ divides all the coefficients.
If $P(x)$ has degree $1$, then $P$ represents at least one prime. This is a consequence of Dirichlet's Theorem on primes in arithmetic progression (and easily implies that Theorem).
As has been pointed out, for degree $ge 2$, irreducibility is not enough to ensure that a polynomial represents a prime. For some irreducible polynomials $P(x)$, there exists a $d gt 1$ such that $d$ divides $P(n)$ for every integer $n$.
However, that can only happen for relatively simple congruential reasons. So let us focus attention on polynomials $P(x)$ for which there is no such universal $d$. Unfortunately, it is an open problem whether such a polynomial must necessarily represent at least one prime.
Example: There is a good deal of evidence that there are infinitely many primes of the form $x^2+1$. However, whether or not there are infinitely many is a long-standing open problem, often called the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. If we could show that for all $ane 0$, (or even infinitely many $a$) there exists $x$ such that $(2ax)^2+1$ is prime, that would settle the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture. (Conversely, the Hardy-Littlewood Conjecture implies that there are infinitely many such $a$.)
So the question you raised seems to be extremely difficult even for polynomials of degree $2$!
edited Jul 11 '12 at 16:26
answered Jul 10 '12 at 16:59
André NicolasAndré Nicolas
453k36426812
453k36426812
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f169066%2fpolynomials-representing-primes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
Have you seen this?
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Jul 10 '12 at 14:27
$begingroup$
I could be wrong but I think the question is..."Does every irreducible polynomial over $mathbb{Z}$ represent at least one prime?"
$endgroup$
– fretty
Jul 10 '12 at 17:03