Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

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

  1. #1
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5

    [SOLVED] 3, 5, 7 primes

    Prove that 3, 5, 7 are the only three consecutive odd integers that are primes.

    How to start?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    Prove that 3, 5, 7 are the only three consecutive odd integers that are primes.

    How to start?
    Consider congruence, mod 3. For any three consecutive odd integers, exactly one of them will be congruent to 0 (mod 3). If it is greater than 3, then it cannot be prime.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    Consider congruence, mod 3. For any three consecutive odd integers, exactly one of them will be congruent to 0 (mod 3). If it is greater than 3, then it cannot be prime.
    I understand modulo math but I am not sure how it would be applied. Can you elaborate some more?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    I understand modulo math but I am not sure how it would be applied. Can you elaborate some more?
    Sure.

    Three consecutive odd integers can be written n, n + 2, n + 4. We know n is of the form n = 2k + 1, but this is not important for our proof.

    n is either congruent to 0, 1, or 2 (mod 3). This makes 3 cases.

    Suppose n is congruent to 0 (mod 3). Then it is a multiple of 3. If it is not 3, then it is not prime, and we are done.

    Suppose n is congruent to 1 (mod 3). Then n + 2 \equiv 1 + 2 \equiv 3 \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ 3). And we are done.

    Suppose n is congruent to 2 (mod 3). Then n + 4 \equiv 2 + 4  \equiv 6 \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ 3). And we are done.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    Sure.

    Three consecutive odd integers can be written n, n + 2, n + 4. We know n is of the form n = 2k + 1, but this is not important for our proof.

    n is either congruent to 0, 1, or 2 (mod 3). This makes 3 cases.

    Suppose n is congruent to 0 (mod 3). Then it is a multiple of 3. If it is not 3, then it is not prime, and we are done.
    Looking at this first case:

    n\in\mathbb{Z}^+, \ n=2k+1 and three consecutive odd integers would be of the form n, n+2, n+4

    Suppose n\equiv 0 \ (\text{mod} \ 3)

    n={ 3,6,9,12,...}

    This is understandable but then don't I have to then show 3 would be the only odd prime out of the set that satisfies this congruence?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    Looking at this first case:

    n\in\mathbb{Z}^+, \ n=2k+1 and three consecutive odd integers would be of the form n, n+2, n+4

    Suppose n\equiv 0 \ (\text{mod} \ 3)

    n={ 3,6,9,12,...}

    This is understandable but then don't I have to then show 3 would be the only odd prime out of the set that satisfies this congruence?
    There's not much to show. A multiple of 3 is of the form n = 3m. If m > 1, then n is composite (it has factors m and 3, among possibly others).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    Suppose n is congruent to 1 (mod 3). Then n + 2 \equiv 1 + 2 \equiv 3 \equiv 0\ (\text{mod}\ 3). And we are done.
    If we are saying n\equiv 1\ (\text{mod}\ 3), why did you immediately sub in n+2.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    If we are saying n\equiv 1\ (\text{mod}\ 3), why did you immediately sub in n+2.
    I was looking for a member of {n, n+2, n+4} that was divisible by 3.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Super Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    593
    Thanks
    4
    This was a problem we did, the reasoning is the same but does (explicitly) use modulus and congruence to prove:

    As stated, three consecutive integers are of the form: n, n+2, n+4. The first integer is divisible by three with a remainder of 0, 1, or 2. 0 is obviously out.

    If n has a remainder of 1:

    n = 3k+1 \Rightarrow n+2 = (3k+1)+2 \Rightarrow n+2 = 3(k+1); which is a multiple of 3 and thus not a prime number.

    If n has a remainder of 2:
    n = 3k+2 \Rightarrow n+4 = (3k+2)+4 \Rightarrow n+4 = 3(k+2); which is a multiple of 3 and thus not a prime number.

    Obviously not as succinct and to the point as Undefined's proof, but if you are in the same spot I was in when this question came up, this was what our Professor expected us to know.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    I was looking for a member of {n, n+2, n+4} that was divisible by 3.
    Let n\in\mathbb{Z}^+ \ \text{such that} \ n=2m+1; thus, 3 consecutive odd \mathbb{Z} would be of the form S={ n, n+2, n+4}.

    Case 1: S\equiv\ 0\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
    Let n\equiv\ 0\ (\text{mod}\ 3).
    n={ 3,6,9,...}; therefore, n=3 or n isn't prime, since if n=3m and m>1, then n is composite.

    Case 2: S\equiv\ 1\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
    Let n+2\equiv\ 1\ (\text{mod}\ 3).
    n={ 2,5,8,...}.

    Case 3: S\equiv\ 2\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
    Let n+4\equiv\ 2\ (\text{mod}\ 3).
    n={ 1,4,7,...}.

    I am not sure now how to tie in that it follows n=5 in case 2 and n=7 in case 3.

    Obviously since we are looking for 3 consecutive odd primes it must be those.

    Also, how would I then show that these are the only 3 consecutive?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Super Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    593
    Thanks
    4
    Also, how would I then show that these are the only 3 consecutive?
    By exhaustion of those two cases. If N is congruent to 1(mod 3), then N+2 is congruent to 0(mod3); and if N is congruent to 2(mod3), then N+4 is congruent to 0(mod3).

    Also 1(mod3) should be {1, 4, 7. . .} and 2(mod3) should be {2, 5, 8. . .}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by ANDS! View Post
    By exhaustion of those two cases. If N is congruent to 1(mod 3), then N+2 is congruent to 0(mod3); and if N is congruent to 2(mod3), then N+4 is congruent to 0(mod3).

    Also 1(mod3) should be {1, 4, 7. . .} and 2(mod3) should be {2, 5, 8. . .}.

    If n+2\equiv 1 \ (\text{mod} \ 3), then n\neq 1 since 1+2=3\not\equiv 1 \ (\text{mod} \ 3)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    Let n\in\mathbb{Z}^+ \ \text{such that} \ n=2m+1; thus, 3 consecutive odd \mathbb{Z} would be of the form S={ n, n+2, n+4}.

    Case 1: S\equiv\ 0\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
    Let n\equiv\ 0\ (\text{mod}\ 3).
    n={ 3,6,9,...}; therefore, n=3 or n isn't prime, since if n=3m and m>1, then n is composite.

    Case 2: S\equiv\ 1\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
    Let n+2\equiv\ 1\ (\text{mod}\ 3).
    n={ 2,5,8,...}.

    Case 3: S\equiv\ 2\ (\text{mod}\ 3)
    Let n+4\equiv\ 2\ (\text{mod}\ 3).
    n={ 1,4,7,...}.

    I am not sure now how to tie in that it follows n=5 in case 2 and n=7 in case 3.

    Obviously since we are looking for 3 consecutive odd primes it must be those.

    Also, how would I then show that these are the only 3 consecutive?
    Your proof has some problems, such as confusion between sets and integers. I would avoid setting an integer equal to a set unless you're doing analysis and defining the integers, etc. I would also avoid the shorthand "3 consecutive odd \mathbb{Z}." What you really mean is "3 consecutive odd members of \mathbb{Z}" but it is easier to just write "3 consecutive odd integers."

    It might help you to let n > 3. (The case n = 1 is easily dealt with separately.)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    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)
    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)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5
    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)
    I don't like the confusion of n and then having n+2 and n+4. That is why I said S is equiv and then choose the appropriate element of S.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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