Results 1 to 10 of 10

Math Help - Prime Number on an interval

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    16

    Prime Number on an interval

    Can someone help me prove the following:

    If n is an integer and n is greater than 2, then there exists a prime p such that n is less than p which is less than n!.

    Thanks so much for any help.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyT View Post
    Can someone help me prove the following:

    If n is an integer and n is greater than 2, then there exists a prime p such that n is less than p which is less than n!.

    Thanks so much for any help.
    Suppose that for some number n there is no prime between n and n!.

    Now consider (n!-1), this is not divisible by any number 2<=k<=n, and so
    is not divisible by any prime <=n. Hence either (n!-1) is prime or there is
    some prime q, n<n<n!, which divides (n!-1). Either case is a contradiction
    and so there must be a prime netween n and n!.

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyT View Post
    Can someone help me prove the following:

    If n is an integer and n is greater than 2, then there exists a prime p such that n is less than p which is less than n!.

    Thanks so much for any help.
    Use the Betrand Postulate (proven by Chebyshev).

    Given any integer n>2 there exists a prime,
    n<p<2n.

    Then, since n!>2n we have that it too contains a prime.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    Use the Betrand Postulate (proven by Chebyshev).

    Given any integer n>2 there exists a prime,
    n<p<2n.

    Then, since n!>2n we have that it too contains a prime.
    Prove the weaker result from the stronger? Doesn't that suggest to
    you that maybe they have not covered the stronger result?

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainBlack View Post
    Doesn't that suggest to
    you that maybe they have not covered the stronger result?

    RonL
    Are you saying that there is a flaw in my flawlwss proof written by my flawless hand?

    It seems you are saying I should not use that since I did not proof it. But the result is well known.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    Are you saying that there is a flaw in my flawlwss proof written by my flawless hand?

    It seems you are saying I should not use that since I did not proof it. But the result is well known.
    No I am suggesting that you could prove the result in a manner that
    the student might understand, and could reproduce in their own words.

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor Quick's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    New England
    Posts
    1,024
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    Use the Betrand Postulate (proven by Chebyshev).

    Given any integer n>2 there exists a prime,
    n<p<2n.

    Then, since n!>2n we have that it too contains a prime.
    and yet n can equal 2 and it would work
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Quick View Post
    and yet n can equal 2 and it would work
    Yes it does.
    I should have said n>1 but that is trivial.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor Quick's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    New England
    Posts
    1,024
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    Yes it does.
    I should have said n>1 but that is trivial.
    Why would that be trivial?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Quick View Post
    Why would that be trivial?
    When a mathemation uses the phrase trivial it might refer to something which is easily seen to be true. Like that x(x^2+1)=0 it is trivial that x=0, but not that x=i. Also, many theorem do not work for some integers but work for sufficiently large integers. Like this theorem over here that n=1 does not work, a mathemation would say that is trivial. When you learn more math you will see that many theorem do not work for the simplest case, usually invlovling 1 or 0. Thus, when someone says that is does not work a mathemation might respond that what he said is trivial. Those are the two meanings of the word.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 24th 2011, 12:23 PM
  2. Prime number
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 1st 2010, 04:53 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 2nd 2009, 09:31 AM
  4. Prime number
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 3rd 2008, 06:40 PM
  5. Number theory, prime number
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 17th 2006, 09:11 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum