Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Math Help - [SOLVED] 3, 5, 7 primes

  1. #16
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    I don't like the confusion of n and then having n+2 and n+4. That is why I set S is equiv and then choose the appropriate element of S.
    You have a set congruent to an integer modulo another integer. This makes no sense. For example, let A = {1,2,3,4,5,8}.

    Solve for x: A \equiv x\ (\text{mod}\ 3).

    This is meaningless.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #17
    Super Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    593
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    If n+2\equiv 1 \ (\text{mod} \ 3), then n\neq 1 since 1+2=3\not\equiv 1 \ (\text{mod} \ 3)
    My apologies. I do not mean that N+2 is congruent to 1(mod3); I mean that if you suppose that N is congruent to 1(mod3) (and thus is of the form 3k+1), then N+2 will be congruent to 0(mod3), which would make your second odd integer not prime. The same reasoning follows if N is congruent to 2(mod3), N+4 will fail to be prime.

    These are the three cases Undefined is speaking of.

    That is why I said S is equiv and then choose the appropriate element of S.
    You do not have to do all that though. What Undefined (I believe) is trying to convey, is that your starting odd integer has to belong to one of three classes: 0, 1 or 2(mod3). It can not belong to 0, as that would make it non-prime. If it belongs to 1(mod3), then one of your other integers will fail (the second one). If it belongs to 2(mod3) then the other integer will fail (the third one). Your then done, as you've shown that all cases result in a list that includes at least one non-prime.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #18
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    You have a set congruent to an integer modulo another integer. This makes no sense. For example, let A = {1,2,3,4,5,8}.

    Solve for x: A \equiv x\ (\text{mod}\ 3).

    This is meaningless.
    But why you said n\equiv \dots and then picked {n,n+2, or n+4} to take the place of n that to me makes no sense because n=n+2 for the substitution to work.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #19
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    But why you said n\equiv \dots and then picked {n,n+2, or n+4} to take the place of n that to me makes no sense because n=n+2 for the substitution to work.
    I did not substitute. I was stating an implication ( \Longrightarrow).

    IF n is congruent to 1 (mod 3), THEN n + 2 is congruent to 0 (mod 3).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #20
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    I did not substitute. I was stating an implication ( \Longrightarrow).

    IF n is congruent to 1 (mod 3), THEN n + 2 is congruent to 0 (mod 3).
    Look at post 7 and 8 when I asked about the substitution.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #21
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    Look at post 7 and 8 when I asked about the substitution.
    Oh, I was reading "sub in" loosely as in,

    first we had n to the left of the congruence sign

    then we had n + 2 to the left of the congruence sign

    so n + 2 was "subbed into" the place holder that is on the left of the congruence sign.

    I certainly did not mean to say that n \equiv n+2\ (\text{mod}\ 3). (Which can never be true.)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #22
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    Oh, I was reading "sub in" loosely as in,

    first we had n to the left of the congruence sign

    then we had n + 2 to the left of the congruence sign

    so n + 2 was "subbed into" the place holder that is on the left of the congruence sign.

    I certainly did not mean to say that n \equiv n+2\ (\text{mod}\ 3). (Which can never be true.)
    That is why I decided to change n equiv to set with elements to avoid such issues.

    Saying x is equiv such that x is some integer and then picking n, n+2, n+4 may be a better method.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #23
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    The final question is how does this justify that there is/are no other groupings of 3 consecutive odd integers?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #24
    Super Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    593
    Thanks
    4
    By this bit here, with n as an arbitrary starting integer:

    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    It is easiest to make the three cases:

    Case 1: n \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ 3)

    Case 2: n \equiv 1\ (\text{mod}\ 3)

    Case 3: n \equiv 2\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
    All cases lead to a contradiction of the assumption that there is a set of consecutive odd prime triples that is not "3, 5, 7".
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. [SOLVED] Recursive sequence and primes
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: May 12th 2010, 07:14 PM
  2. Primes
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 27th 2010, 05:03 PM
  3. Primes 2
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 27th 2010, 04:44 PM
  4. Primes
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 16th 2009, 08:13 AM
  5. [SOLVED] Proof with Primes
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 10th 2009, 09:26 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum