Polynomials representing primes












7












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
















7












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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














7












7








7


4



$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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


















  • $begingroup$
    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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















15












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    7












    $begingroup$

    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 $2$!






    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%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









      15












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        15












        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          15












          15








          15





          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21









          Community

          1




          1










          answered Jul 10 '12 at 14:35









          Bill DubuqueBill Dubuque

          211k29192645




          211k29192645























              7












              $begingroup$

              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 $2$!






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                7












                $begingroup$

                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 $2$!






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  7












                  7








                  7





                  $begingroup$

                  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 $2$!






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  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 $2$!







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Jul 11 '12 at 16:26

























                  answered Jul 10 '12 at 16:59









                  André NicolasAndré Nicolas

                  453k36426812




                  453k36426812






























                      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%2f169066%2fpolynomials-representing-primes%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

                      Quarter-circle Tiles

                      build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                      Mont Emei