Are prime numbers really random?
$begingroup$
While practicing to code for my college course I stumbled upon this and would like to know if this is something new or significant as I haven't found anything resembling it on the internet.
$ p_1, p_2, ..., p_n = text{consecutive prime numbers starting from 2} \$
$ q_1 = p_2p_3...p_n \
q_2 = p_1p_3...p_n \
... \
q_n = p_1p_2...p_{n-1} \$
$ r_1 in {1, ..., p_1-1} \
... \
r_n in {1, ..., p_n-1} \$
$ s= p_1p_2...p_n \$
$ x equiv q_1r_1+...+q_nr_n :text{mod}: s \$
$ x_2 = text{the second smallest congruence} \
text{All congruences less than } x_2^2 text{ are also every prime number between } p_n text{ and } x_2^2 \$
$ text{example:} \$
$ p_1, p_2, ..., p_n = 2, 3, 5 \$
$ q_1 = 3cdot5 = 15 \
q_2 = 2cdot5 = 10 \
q_3 = 2cdot3 = 6 \$
$ r_1 in {1} \
r_2 in {1, 2} \
r_3 in {1, 2, 3, 4} \$
$ s = 2cdot3cdot5=30 \$
$ x_2 equiv 7 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30 \
7^2 = 49 \$
$ text{The full sequence of primes is clearly not random.} \$
$ 0 \
color{blue}{1 equiv 31 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot1 :text{mod}: 30} \
1 \
2 \
3 \
4 \
color{red}{5} \$
$ 6 \
color{blue}{7 equiv 37 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30} \
8 \
9 \
10 \
color{red}{11 equiv 41 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot1 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 12 \
color{blue}{13 equiv 43 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot3 :text{mod}: 30} \
14 \
15 \
16 \
color{red}{17 equiv 47 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 18 \
color{blue}{19 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot4 :text{mod}: 30} \
20 \
21 \
22 \
color{red}{23 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot3 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 24 \
color{blue}{25} \
26 \
27 \
28 \
color{red}{29 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot4 :text{mod}: 30} \$
prime-numbers modular-arithmetic
New contributor
$endgroup$
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
While practicing to code for my college course I stumbled upon this and would like to know if this is something new or significant as I haven't found anything resembling it on the internet.
$ p_1, p_2, ..., p_n = text{consecutive prime numbers starting from 2} \$
$ q_1 = p_2p_3...p_n \
q_2 = p_1p_3...p_n \
... \
q_n = p_1p_2...p_{n-1} \$
$ r_1 in {1, ..., p_1-1} \
... \
r_n in {1, ..., p_n-1} \$
$ s= p_1p_2...p_n \$
$ x equiv q_1r_1+...+q_nr_n :text{mod}: s \$
$ x_2 = text{the second smallest congruence} \
text{All congruences less than } x_2^2 text{ are also every prime number between } p_n text{ and } x_2^2 \$
$ text{example:} \$
$ p_1, p_2, ..., p_n = 2, 3, 5 \$
$ q_1 = 3cdot5 = 15 \
q_2 = 2cdot5 = 10 \
q_3 = 2cdot3 = 6 \$
$ r_1 in {1} \
r_2 in {1, 2} \
r_3 in {1, 2, 3, 4} \$
$ s = 2cdot3cdot5=30 \$
$ x_2 equiv 7 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30 \
7^2 = 49 \$
$ text{The full sequence of primes is clearly not random.} \$
$ 0 \
color{blue}{1 equiv 31 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot1 :text{mod}: 30} \
1 \
2 \
3 \
4 \
color{red}{5} \$
$ 6 \
color{blue}{7 equiv 37 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30} \
8 \
9 \
10 \
color{red}{11 equiv 41 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot1 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 12 \
color{blue}{13 equiv 43 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot3 :text{mod}: 30} \
14 \
15 \
16 \
color{red}{17 equiv 47 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 18 \
color{blue}{19 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot4 :text{mod}: 30} \
20 \
21 \
22 \
color{red}{23 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot3 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 24 \
color{blue}{25} \
26 \
27 \
28 \
color{red}{29 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot4 :text{mod}: 30} \$
prime-numbers modular-arithmetic
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Just one question, what do you mean with second smallest congruence?
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StanTendijck um the second smallest x
$endgroup$
– user644904
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@user644904 Pretty interesting observation in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– Larry
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I am going to code it up. I'll get back to you in approximately 15 minutes.
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I believe that this can be setup a bit more cleanly: Let $p_i$ denote the $i$-th prime. For a particular $n$, define $s:=p_1p_2cdots p_n$ and $q_i:=s/p_i$ for $i=1,2,ldots,n$. Let $x_2$ be the second-smallest member of the set $$S = left{sum_{i=1}^n q_i r_i bmod s;middle|; 1 leq r_i < p_i right}$$ From there, you seem to be conjecturing that the members of $S$ in some range are exactly the primes in that range, but I'm not entirely clear on the formulation.
$endgroup$
– Blue
2 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
While practicing to code for my college course I stumbled upon this and would like to know if this is something new or significant as I haven't found anything resembling it on the internet.
$ p_1, p_2, ..., p_n = text{consecutive prime numbers starting from 2} \$
$ q_1 = p_2p_3...p_n \
q_2 = p_1p_3...p_n \
... \
q_n = p_1p_2...p_{n-1} \$
$ r_1 in {1, ..., p_1-1} \
... \
r_n in {1, ..., p_n-1} \$
$ s= p_1p_2...p_n \$
$ x equiv q_1r_1+...+q_nr_n :text{mod}: s \$
$ x_2 = text{the second smallest congruence} \
text{All congruences less than } x_2^2 text{ are also every prime number between } p_n text{ and } x_2^2 \$
$ text{example:} \$
$ p_1, p_2, ..., p_n = 2, 3, 5 \$
$ q_1 = 3cdot5 = 15 \
q_2 = 2cdot5 = 10 \
q_3 = 2cdot3 = 6 \$
$ r_1 in {1} \
r_2 in {1, 2} \
r_3 in {1, 2, 3, 4} \$
$ s = 2cdot3cdot5=30 \$
$ x_2 equiv 7 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30 \
7^2 = 49 \$
$ text{The full sequence of primes is clearly not random.} \$
$ 0 \
color{blue}{1 equiv 31 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot1 :text{mod}: 30} \
1 \
2 \
3 \
4 \
color{red}{5} \$
$ 6 \
color{blue}{7 equiv 37 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30} \
8 \
9 \
10 \
color{red}{11 equiv 41 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot1 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 12 \
color{blue}{13 equiv 43 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot3 :text{mod}: 30} \
14 \
15 \
16 \
color{red}{17 equiv 47 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 18 \
color{blue}{19 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot4 :text{mod}: 30} \
20 \
21 \
22 \
color{red}{23 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot3 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 24 \
color{blue}{25} \
26 \
27 \
28 \
color{red}{29 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot4 :text{mod}: 30} \$
prime-numbers modular-arithmetic
New contributor
$endgroup$
While practicing to code for my college course I stumbled upon this and would like to know if this is something new or significant as I haven't found anything resembling it on the internet.
$ p_1, p_2, ..., p_n = text{consecutive prime numbers starting from 2} \$
$ q_1 = p_2p_3...p_n \
q_2 = p_1p_3...p_n \
... \
q_n = p_1p_2...p_{n-1} \$
$ r_1 in {1, ..., p_1-1} \
... \
r_n in {1, ..., p_n-1} \$
$ s= p_1p_2...p_n \$
$ x equiv q_1r_1+...+q_nr_n :text{mod}: s \$
$ x_2 = text{the second smallest congruence} \
text{All congruences less than } x_2^2 text{ are also every prime number between } p_n text{ and } x_2^2 \$
$ text{example:} \$
$ p_1, p_2, ..., p_n = 2, 3, 5 \$
$ q_1 = 3cdot5 = 15 \
q_2 = 2cdot5 = 10 \
q_3 = 2cdot3 = 6 \$
$ r_1 in {1} \
r_2 in {1, 2} \
r_3 in {1, 2, 3, 4} \$
$ s = 2cdot3cdot5=30 \$
$ x_2 equiv 7 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30 \
7^2 = 49 \$
$ text{The full sequence of primes is clearly not random.} \$
$ 0 \
color{blue}{1 equiv 31 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot1 :text{mod}: 30} \
1 \
2 \
3 \
4 \
color{red}{5} \$
$ 6 \
color{blue}{7 equiv 37 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30} \
8 \
9 \
10 \
color{red}{11 equiv 41 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot1 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 12 \
color{blue}{13 equiv 43 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot3 :text{mod}: 30} \
14 \
15 \
16 \
color{red}{17 equiv 47 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot2 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 18 \
color{blue}{19 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot1 +6cdot4 :text{mod}: 30} \
20 \
21 \
22 \
color{red}{23 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot3 :text{mod}: 30} \$
$ 24 \
color{blue}{25} \
26 \
27 \
28 \
color{red}{29 equiv 15cdot1 +10cdot2 +6cdot4 :text{mod}: 30} \$
prime-numbers modular-arithmetic
prime-numbers modular-arithmetic
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
user644904
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
user644904user644904
714
714
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
Just one question, what do you mean with second smallest congruence?
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StanTendijck um the second smallest x
$endgroup$
– user644904
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@user644904 Pretty interesting observation in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– Larry
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I am going to code it up. I'll get back to you in approximately 15 minutes.
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I believe that this can be setup a bit more cleanly: Let $p_i$ denote the $i$-th prime. For a particular $n$, define $s:=p_1p_2cdots p_n$ and $q_i:=s/p_i$ for $i=1,2,ldots,n$. Let $x_2$ be the second-smallest member of the set $$S = left{sum_{i=1}^n q_i r_i bmod s;middle|; 1 leq r_i < p_i right}$$ From there, you seem to be conjecturing that the members of $S$ in some range are exactly the primes in that range, but I'm not entirely clear on the formulation.
$endgroup$
– Blue
2 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Just one question, what do you mean with second smallest congruence?
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StanTendijck um the second smallest x
$endgroup$
– user644904
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@user644904 Pretty interesting observation in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– Larry
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I am going to code it up. I'll get back to you in approximately 15 minutes.
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I believe that this can be setup a bit more cleanly: Let $p_i$ denote the $i$-th prime. For a particular $n$, define $s:=p_1p_2cdots p_n$ and $q_i:=s/p_i$ for $i=1,2,ldots,n$. Let $x_2$ be the second-smallest member of the set $$S = left{sum_{i=1}^n q_i r_i bmod s;middle|; 1 leq r_i < p_i right}$$ From there, you seem to be conjecturing that the members of $S$ in some range are exactly the primes in that range, but I'm not entirely clear on the formulation.
$endgroup$
– Blue
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Just one question, what do you mean with second smallest congruence?
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Just one question, what do you mean with second smallest congruence?
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StanTendijck um the second smallest x
$endgroup$
– user644904
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StanTendijck um the second smallest x
$endgroup$
– user644904
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@user644904 Pretty interesting observation in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– Larry
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user644904 Pretty interesting observation in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– Larry
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I am going to code it up. I'll get back to you in approximately 15 minutes.
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am going to code it up. I'll get back to you in approximately 15 minutes.
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I believe that this can be setup a bit more cleanly: Let $p_i$ denote the $i$-th prime. For a particular $n$, define $s:=p_1p_2cdots p_n$ and $q_i:=s/p_i$ for $i=1,2,ldots,n$. Let $x_2$ be the second-smallest member of the set $$S = left{sum_{i=1}^n q_i r_i bmod s;middle|; 1 leq r_i < p_i right}$$ From there, you seem to be conjecturing that the members of $S$ in some range are exactly the primes in that range, but I'm not entirely clear on the formulation.
$endgroup$
– Blue
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I believe that this can be setup a bit more cleanly: Let $p_i$ denote the $i$-th prime. For a particular $n$, define $s:=p_1p_2cdots p_n$ and $q_i:=s/p_i$ for $i=1,2,ldots,n$. Let $x_2$ be the second-smallest member of the set $$S = left{sum_{i=1}^n q_i r_i bmod s;middle|; 1 leq r_i < p_i right}$$ From there, you seem to be conjecturing that the members of $S$ in some range are exactly the primes in that range, but I'm not entirely clear on the formulation.
$endgroup$
– Blue
2 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Interesting that you marked 25, which is not a prime, similar to 6x+1 and 6x-1, which means it's not a primality test, but still quite interesting.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yeah, but I can't comment (need 50 reputation), so I posted it here.
$endgroup$
– James
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Its not a primality test
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't say you meant it to be, I'm just pointing out it's not unique to only prime numbers.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes you're correct
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If it was unique to prime numbers, then this would be ground-breaking.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I had to say, I was suspicious when I read the question but I coded up the problem and up to at least $n=10$ it definitely works.
Edit: I found a proof! It works. Check out the details below.
The proof consists of two main steps: we first prove that the sum $r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n$ can never be divided by $p_i$ for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. After that, we will show that $x_2 = p_{n+1}$.
To prove the first part, let's first forget about the modulo $p_1p_2cdots p_n$ term for a moment. Now, note that both $q_i$ and $r_i$ are not divisible by $p_i$ and all other $q_i$ are divisible by $p_i$. Hence, our sum
$$r_1q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = r_i q_i (neq 0) mod p_i$$ can never be divisible by $p_i$. Adding a multiple of $p_1cdots p_n$ (which is divisible by $p_i$) doesn't change this fact. Hence, $$Big(r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1cdots p_n)Big) neq 0 mod p_i$$
for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. Summarizing, the first $n$ primes $p_1$, $p_2$, $dots$ ,$p_n$ will never be divisors of our sum. Now, the question remains: might it be divisible by $p_{n+1}$ for example? We cannot exclude this! But this does wrap up the first part of the proof.
Lemma There exist choices $(r_1,dots,r_n)$ and $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ such
that $$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = 1mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n) $$ and
$$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = p_{n+1}mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n). $$
Proof This lemma is actually an application of the Chinese Remainder Theorem. This theorem states that given a sequence $$(a_1,dots,a_n)in prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$$
is uniquely related to an $ainmathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}$ where I use the notation $mathbb{F}_z$ to represent the group related to calculating modulo $z$.
We actually know that $(1,1,dots,1)$ is related to $1$ but we don't know exactly what is the sequence which is related to $p_{n+1}$. It turns out it is not necessary to know this sequence to proof its existence! Let's take now arbitrary values $z_1,dots,z_n$ which satisfy the same conditions as the $r_i$, $r_i'$. Let's simplify our expression now modulo $p_i$
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = z_i q_i mod p_i $$
Since $p_i$ is prime, we know that $c q_i$ for $cin{1,dots,p_i-1}$ actually generates the complete group, i.e., $$ {c q_i mod p_i: cin{1,dots,p_i-1}} = {1,2,dots,p_i-1}.$$ This essentially means that we can make the right-hand side equal to almost any number in $prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$. To be precise,
$$ prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod p_i: forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} \ = prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_i q_i mod p_i: 1leq z_ileq p_i-1} = prod_{i=1}^{n} (mathbb{F}_{p_i}setminus{0}). $$ A slight adaptation of the standard Chinese Remainder Theorem now gives us that
$$ {z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod (p_1cdots p_n): forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} = mathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}setminus A $$
where $A$ is the set of all multiples of $0, p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$.
Now, let's translate this to English. We see that $1$ is not an element of $A$ and, hence, there exists a sequence $(z_1,dots,z_n)$ such that
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = 1 mod (p_1cdots p_n)$$
and we simply take $r_i = z_i$. Moreover, the next element which is not part of $A$ is $p_{n+1}$ and hence there exist a sequence $(w_1,dots,w_n)$ such that
$$ w_1 q_1 + cdots + w_n q_n = p_{n+1} mod (p_1cdots p_n) $$
and we take $r_i'=w_i$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now, we have dealt with the most difficult part and it is not too difficult to finish the proof. For the sake of completeness, let $s = r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1p_2cdots p_n)$ such that $s< p_{n+1}^2$ and let's assume it is composite. We have proven above that $s$ is not divisible by $p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$. This means that the first candidate prime factor is actually $geq p_{n+1}$. However, since $s$ is composite, it has a second prime factor and this also needs to be $geq p_{n+1}$. Thus $sgeq p_{n+1}^2$ which is a contradiction. This completes the overall proof!
Extra note: we have developed a way of constructing the first $n$ primes. However, since it is not clear how the sequence $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ is chosen in practice, the method is not particularly computationally efficient to put it mildly.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for the verification
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Amazing, but I think I know the pattern for $r$.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I apologise in advance for the parcing of the following but these are the patterns for the bigger ones n = 10: (format = (r1,r2,r3,r4,r5,r6,r7,r8,r9,r10)), [(1, 1, 1, 2, 9, 3, 5, 13, 19, 24),31], [(1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 11, 4, 9, 11, 12), 1]. n = 9: [(1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 7, 5), 29][(1, 2, 4, 3, 7, 7, 14, 14, 20),1]. n = 8: [(1, 2, 1, 5, 7, 11, 11, 15), 23] [(1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 5, 16, 18), 1]. n = 7: [(1, 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 13), 19] [(1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 4, 15), 1]
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I would be amazed if you can confirm your pattern here
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
It might have to wait till tomorrow because I have a test in the morning and need some sleep.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
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
});
}
});
user644904 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f3113307%2fare-prime-numbers-really-random%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
$begingroup$
Interesting that you marked 25, which is not a prime, similar to 6x+1 and 6x-1, which means it's not a primality test, but still quite interesting.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yeah, but I can't comment (need 50 reputation), so I posted it here.
$endgroup$
– James
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Its not a primality test
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't say you meant it to be, I'm just pointing out it's not unique to only prime numbers.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes you're correct
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If it was unique to prime numbers, then this would be ground-breaking.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Interesting that you marked 25, which is not a prime, similar to 6x+1 and 6x-1, which means it's not a primality test, but still quite interesting.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yeah, but I can't comment (need 50 reputation), so I posted it here.
$endgroup$
– James
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Its not a primality test
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't say you meant it to be, I'm just pointing out it's not unique to only prime numbers.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes you're correct
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If it was unique to prime numbers, then this would be ground-breaking.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Interesting that you marked 25, which is not a prime, similar to 6x+1 and 6x-1, which means it's not a primality test, but still quite interesting.
$endgroup$
Interesting that you marked 25, which is not a prime, similar to 6x+1 and 6x-1, which means it's not a primality test, but still quite interesting.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
JamesJames
218
218
$begingroup$
Yeah, but I can't comment (need 50 reputation), so I posted it here.
$endgroup$
– James
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Its not a primality test
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't say you meant it to be, I'm just pointing out it's not unique to only prime numbers.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes you're correct
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If it was unique to prime numbers, then this would be ground-breaking.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Yeah, but I can't comment (need 50 reputation), so I posted it here.
$endgroup$
– James
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Its not a primality test
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't say you meant it to be, I'm just pointing out it's not unique to only prime numbers.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes you're correct
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
If it was unique to prime numbers, then this would be ground-breaking.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, but I can't comment (need 50 reputation), so I posted it here.
$endgroup$
– James
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, but I can't comment (need 50 reputation), so I posted it here.
$endgroup$
– James
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Its not a primality test
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Its not a primality test
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't say you meant it to be, I'm just pointing out it's not unique to only prime numbers.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't say you meant it to be, I'm just pointing out it's not unique to only prime numbers.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes you're correct
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes you're correct
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
If it was unique to prime numbers, then this would be ground-breaking.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
If it was unique to prime numbers, then this would be ground-breaking.
$endgroup$
– James
2 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I had to say, I was suspicious when I read the question but I coded up the problem and up to at least $n=10$ it definitely works.
Edit: I found a proof! It works. Check out the details below.
The proof consists of two main steps: we first prove that the sum $r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n$ can never be divided by $p_i$ for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. After that, we will show that $x_2 = p_{n+1}$.
To prove the first part, let's first forget about the modulo $p_1p_2cdots p_n$ term for a moment. Now, note that both $q_i$ and $r_i$ are not divisible by $p_i$ and all other $q_i$ are divisible by $p_i$. Hence, our sum
$$r_1q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = r_i q_i (neq 0) mod p_i$$ can never be divisible by $p_i$. Adding a multiple of $p_1cdots p_n$ (which is divisible by $p_i$) doesn't change this fact. Hence, $$Big(r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1cdots p_n)Big) neq 0 mod p_i$$
for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. Summarizing, the first $n$ primes $p_1$, $p_2$, $dots$ ,$p_n$ will never be divisors of our sum. Now, the question remains: might it be divisible by $p_{n+1}$ for example? We cannot exclude this! But this does wrap up the first part of the proof.
Lemma There exist choices $(r_1,dots,r_n)$ and $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ such
that $$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = 1mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n) $$ and
$$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = p_{n+1}mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n). $$
Proof This lemma is actually an application of the Chinese Remainder Theorem. This theorem states that given a sequence $$(a_1,dots,a_n)in prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$$
is uniquely related to an $ainmathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}$ where I use the notation $mathbb{F}_z$ to represent the group related to calculating modulo $z$.
We actually know that $(1,1,dots,1)$ is related to $1$ but we don't know exactly what is the sequence which is related to $p_{n+1}$. It turns out it is not necessary to know this sequence to proof its existence! Let's take now arbitrary values $z_1,dots,z_n$ which satisfy the same conditions as the $r_i$, $r_i'$. Let's simplify our expression now modulo $p_i$
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = z_i q_i mod p_i $$
Since $p_i$ is prime, we know that $c q_i$ for $cin{1,dots,p_i-1}$ actually generates the complete group, i.e., $$ {c q_i mod p_i: cin{1,dots,p_i-1}} = {1,2,dots,p_i-1}.$$ This essentially means that we can make the right-hand side equal to almost any number in $prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$. To be precise,
$$ prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod p_i: forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} \ = prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_i q_i mod p_i: 1leq z_ileq p_i-1} = prod_{i=1}^{n} (mathbb{F}_{p_i}setminus{0}). $$ A slight adaptation of the standard Chinese Remainder Theorem now gives us that
$$ {z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod (p_1cdots p_n): forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} = mathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}setminus A $$
where $A$ is the set of all multiples of $0, p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$.
Now, let's translate this to English. We see that $1$ is not an element of $A$ and, hence, there exists a sequence $(z_1,dots,z_n)$ such that
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = 1 mod (p_1cdots p_n)$$
and we simply take $r_i = z_i$. Moreover, the next element which is not part of $A$ is $p_{n+1}$ and hence there exist a sequence $(w_1,dots,w_n)$ such that
$$ w_1 q_1 + cdots + w_n q_n = p_{n+1} mod (p_1cdots p_n) $$
and we take $r_i'=w_i$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now, we have dealt with the most difficult part and it is not too difficult to finish the proof. For the sake of completeness, let $s = r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1p_2cdots p_n)$ such that $s< p_{n+1}^2$ and let's assume it is composite. We have proven above that $s$ is not divisible by $p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$. This means that the first candidate prime factor is actually $geq p_{n+1}$. However, since $s$ is composite, it has a second prime factor and this also needs to be $geq p_{n+1}$. Thus $sgeq p_{n+1}^2$ which is a contradiction. This completes the overall proof!
Extra note: we have developed a way of constructing the first $n$ primes. However, since it is not clear how the sequence $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ is chosen in practice, the method is not particularly computationally efficient to put it mildly.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for the verification
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Amazing, but I think I know the pattern for $r$.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I apologise in advance for the parcing of the following but these are the patterns for the bigger ones n = 10: (format = (r1,r2,r3,r4,r5,r6,r7,r8,r9,r10)), [(1, 1, 1, 2, 9, 3, 5, 13, 19, 24),31], [(1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 11, 4, 9, 11, 12), 1]. n = 9: [(1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 7, 5), 29][(1, 2, 4, 3, 7, 7, 14, 14, 20),1]. n = 8: [(1, 2, 1, 5, 7, 11, 11, 15), 23] [(1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 5, 16, 18), 1]. n = 7: [(1, 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 13), 19] [(1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 4, 15), 1]
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I would be amazed if you can confirm your pattern here
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
It might have to wait till tomorrow because I have a test in the morning and need some sleep.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I had to say, I was suspicious when I read the question but I coded up the problem and up to at least $n=10$ it definitely works.
Edit: I found a proof! It works. Check out the details below.
The proof consists of two main steps: we first prove that the sum $r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n$ can never be divided by $p_i$ for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. After that, we will show that $x_2 = p_{n+1}$.
To prove the first part, let's first forget about the modulo $p_1p_2cdots p_n$ term for a moment. Now, note that both $q_i$ and $r_i$ are not divisible by $p_i$ and all other $q_i$ are divisible by $p_i$. Hence, our sum
$$r_1q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = r_i q_i (neq 0) mod p_i$$ can never be divisible by $p_i$. Adding a multiple of $p_1cdots p_n$ (which is divisible by $p_i$) doesn't change this fact. Hence, $$Big(r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1cdots p_n)Big) neq 0 mod p_i$$
for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. Summarizing, the first $n$ primes $p_1$, $p_2$, $dots$ ,$p_n$ will never be divisors of our sum. Now, the question remains: might it be divisible by $p_{n+1}$ for example? We cannot exclude this! But this does wrap up the first part of the proof.
Lemma There exist choices $(r_1,dots,r_n)$ and $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ such
that $$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = 1mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n) $$ and
$$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = p_{n+1}mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n). $$
Proof This lemma is actually an application of the Chinese Remainder Theorem. This theorem states that given a sequence $$(a_1,dots,a_n)in prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$$
is uniquely related to an $ainmathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}$ where I use the notation $mathbb{F}_z$ to represent the group related to calculating modulo $z$.
We actually know that $(1,1,dots,1)$ is related to $1$ but we don't know exactly what is the sequence which is related to $p_{n+1}$. It turns out it is not necessary to know this sequence to proof its existence! Let's take now arbitrary values $z_1,dots,z_n$ which satisfy the same conditions as the $r_i$, $r_i'$. Let's simplify our expression now modulo $p_i$
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = z_i q_i mod p_i $$
Since $p_i$ is prime, we know that $c q_i$ for $cin{1,dots,p_i-1}$ actually generates the complete group, i.e., $$ {c q_i mod p_i: cin{1,dots,p_i-1}} = {1,2,dots,p_i-1}.$$ This essentially means that we can make the right-hand side equal to almost any number in $prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$. To be precise,
$$ prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod p_i: forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} \ = prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_i q_i mod p_i: 1leq z_ileq p_i-1} = prod_{i=1}^{n} (mathbb{F}_{p_i}setminus{0}). $$ A slight adaptation of the standard Chinese Remainder Theorem now gives us that
$$ {z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod (p_1cdots p_n): forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} = mathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}setminus A $$
where $A$ is the set of all multiples of $0, p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$.
Now, let's translate this to English. We see that $1$ is not an element of $A$ and, hence, there exists a sequence $(z_1,dots,z_n)$ such that
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = 1 mod (p_1cdots p_n)$$
and we simply take $r_i = z_i$. Moreover, the next element which is not part of $A$ is $p_{n+1}$ and hence there exist a sequence $(w_1,dots,w_n)$ such that
$$ w_1 q_1 + cdots + w_n q_n = p_{n+1} mod (p_1cdots p_n) $$
and we take $r_i'=w_i$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now, we have dealt with the most difficult part and it is not too difficult to finish the proof. For the sake of completeness, let $s = r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1p_2cdots p_n)$ such that $s< p_{n+1}^2$ and let's assume it is composite. We have proven above that $s$ is not divisible by $p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$. This means that the first candidate prime factor is actually $geq p_{n+1}$. However, since $s$ is composite, it has a second prime factor and this also needs to be $geq p_{n+1}$. Thus $sgeq p_{n+1}^2$ which is a contradiction. This completes the overall proof!
Extra note: we have developed a way of constructing the first $n$ primes. However, since it is not clear how the sequence $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ is chosen in practice, the method is not particularly computationally efficient to put it mildly.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for the verification
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Amazing, but I think I know the pattern for $r$.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I apologise in advance for the parcing of the following but these are the patterns for the bigger ones n = 10: (format = (r1,r2,r3,r4,r5,r6,r7,r8,r9,r10)), [(1, 1, 1, 2, 9, 3, 5, 13, 19, 24),31], [(1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 11, 4, 9, 11, 12), 1]. n = 9: [(1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 7, 5), 29][(1, 2, 4, 3, 7, 7, 14, 14, 20),1]. n = 8: [(1, 2, 1, 5, 7, 11, 11, 15), 23] [(1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 5, 16, 18), 1]. n = 7: [(1, 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 13), 19] [(1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 4, 15), 1]
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I would be amazed if you can confirm your pattern here
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
It might have to wait till tomorrow because I have a test in the morning and need some sleep.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I had to say, I was suspicious when I read the question but I coded up the problem and up to at least $n=10$ it definitely works.
Edit: I found a proof! It works. Check out the details below.
The proof consists of two main steps: we first prove that the sum $r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n$ can never be divided by $p_i$ for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. After that, we will show that $x_2 = p_{n+1}$.
To prove the first part, let's first forget about the modulo $p_1p_2cdots p_n$ term for a moment. Now, note that both $q_i$ and $r_i$ are not divisible by $p_i$ and all other $q_i$ are divisible by $p_i$. Hence, our sum
$$r_1q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = r_i q_i (neq 0) mod p_i$$ can never be divisible by $p_i$. Adding a multiple of $p_1cdots p_n$ (which is divisible by $p_i$) doesn't change this fact. Hence, $$Big(r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1cdots p_n)Big) neq 0 mod p_i$$
for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. Summarizing, the first $n$ primes $p_1$, $p_2$, $dots$ ,$p_n$ will never be divisors of our sum. Now, the question remains: might it be divisible by $p_{n+1}$ for example? We cannot exclude this! But this does wrap up the first part of the proof.
Lemma There exist choices $(r_1,dots,r_n)$ and $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ such
that $$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = 1mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n) $$ and
$$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = p_{n+1}mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n). $$
Proof This lemma is actually an application of the Chinese Remainder Theorem. This theorem states that given a sequence $$(a_1,dots,a_n)in prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$$
is uniquely related to an $ainmathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}$ where I use the notation $mathbb{F}_z$ to represent the group related to calculating modulo $z$.
We actually know that $(1,1,dots,1)$ is related to $1$ but we don't know exactly what is the sequence which is related to $p_{n+1}$. It turns out it is not necessary to know this sequence to proof its existence! Let's take now arbitrary values $z_1,dots,z_n$ which satisfy the same conditions as the $r_i$, $r_i'$. Let's simplify our expression now modulo $p_i$
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = z_i q_i mod p_i $$
Since $p_i$ is prime, we know that $c q_i$ for $cin{1,dots,p_i-1}$ actually generates the complete group, i.e., $$ {c q_i mod p_i: cin{1,dots,p_i-1}} = {1,2,dots,p_i-1}.$$ This essentially means that we can make the right-hand side equal to almost any number in $prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$. To be precise,
$$ prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod p_i: forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} \ = prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_i q_i mod p_i: 1leq z_ileq p_i-1} = prod_{i=1}^{n} (mathbb{F}_{p_i}setminus{0}). $$ A slight adaptation of the standard Chinese Remainder Theorem now gives us that
$$ {z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod (p_1cdots p_n): forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} = mathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}setminus A $$
where $A$ is the set of all multiples of $0, p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$.
Now, let's translate this to English. We see that $1$ is not an element of $A$ and, hence, there exists a sequence $(z_1,dots,z_n)$ such that
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = 1 mod (p_1cdots p_n)$$
and we simply take $r_i = z_i$. Moreover, the next element which is not part of $A$ is $p_{n+1}$ and hence there exist a sequence $(w_1,dots,w_n)$ such that
$$ w_1 q_1 + cdots + w_n q_n = p_{n+1} mod (p_1cdots p_n) $$
and we take $r_i'=w_i$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now, we have dealt with the most difficult part and it is not too difficult to finish the proof. For the sake of completeness, let $s = r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1p_2cdots p_n)$ such that $s< p_{n+1}^2$ and let's assume it is composite. We have proven above that $s$ is not divisible by $p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$. This means that the first candidate prime factor is actually $geq p_{n+1}$. However, since $s$ is composite, it has a second prime factor and this also needs to be $geq p_{n+1}$. Thus $sgeq p_{n+1}^2$ which is a contradiction. This completes the overall proof!
Extra note: we have developed a way of constructing the first $n$ primes. However, since it is not clear how the sequence $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ is chosen in practice, the method is not particularly computationally efficient to put it mildly.
$endgroup$
I had to say, I was suspicious when I read the question but I coded up the problem and up to at least $n=10$ it definitely works.
Edit: I found a proof! It works. Check out the details below.
The proof consists of two main steps: we first prove that the sum $r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n$ can never be divided by $p_i$ for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. After that, we will show that $x_2 = p_{n+1}$.
To prove the first part, let's first forget about the modulo $p_1p_2cdots p_n$ term for a moment. Now, note that both $q_i$ and $r_i$ are not divisible by $p_i$ and all other $q_i$ are divisible by $p_i$. Hence, our sum
$$r_1q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = r_i q_i (neq 0) mod p_i$$ can never be divisible by $p_i$. Adding a multiple of $p_1cdots p_n$ (which is divisible by $p_i$) doesn't change this fact. Hence, $$Big(r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1cdots p_n)Big) neq 0 mod p_i$$
for any $i$ between $1$ and $n$. Summarizing, the first $n$ primes $p_1$, $p_2$, $dots$ ,$p_n$ will never be divisors of our sum. Now, the question remains: might it be divisible by $p_{n+1}$ for example? We cannot exclude this! But this does wrap up the first part of the proof.
Lemma There exist choices $(r_1,dots,r_n)$ and $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ such
that $$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = 1mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n) $$ and
$$ r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_n = p_{n+1}mod (p_1p_2cdots p_n). $$
Proof This lemma is actually an application of the Chinese Remainder Theorem. This theorem states that given a sequence $$(a_1,dots,a_n)in prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$$
is uniquely related to an $ainmathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}$ where I use the notation $mathbb{F}_z$ to represent the group related to calculating modulo $z$.
We actually know that $(1,1,dots,1)$ is related to $1$ but we don't know exactly what is the sequence which is related to $p_{n+1}$. It turns out it is not necessary to know this sequence to proof its existence! Let's take now arbitrary values $z_1,dots,z_n$ which satisfy the same conditions as the $r_i$, $r_i'$. Let's simplify our expression now modulo $p_i$
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = z_i q_i mod p_i $$
Since $p_i$ is prime, we know that $c q_i$ for $cin{1,dots,p_i-1}$ actually generates the complete group, i.e., $$ {c q_i mod p_i: cin{1,dots,p_i-1}} = {1,2,dots,p_i-1}.$$ This essentially means that we can make the right-hand side equal to almost any number in $prod_{i=1}^{n}mathbb{F}_{p_i}$. To be precise,
$$ prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod p_i: forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} \ = prod_{i=1}^{n}{z_i q_i mod p_i: 1leq z_ileq p_i-1} = prod_{i=1}^{n} (mathbb{F}_{p_i}setminus{0}). $$ A slight adaptation of the standard Chinese Remainder Theorem now gives us that
$$ {z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n mod (p_1cdots p_n): forall j: 1leq z_jleq p_j-1} = mathbb{F}_{prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i}setminus A $$
where $A$ is the set of all multiples of $0, p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$.
Now, let's translate this to English. We see that $1$ is not an element of $A$ and, hence, there exists a sequence $(z_1,dots,z_n)$ such that
$$ z_1 q_1 + cdots + z_n q_n = 1 mod (p_1cdots p_n)$$
and we simply take $r_i = z_i$. Moreover, the next element which is not part of $A$ is $p_{n+1}$ and hence there exist a sequence $(w_1,dots,w_n)$ such that
$$ w_1 q_1 + cdots + w_n q_n = p_{n+1} mod (p_1cdots p_n) $$
and we take $r_i'=w_i$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now, we have dealt with the most difficult part and it is not too difficult to finish the proof. For the sake of completeness, let $s = r_1 q_1 + cdots + r_n q_nmod (p_1p_2cdots p_n)$ such that $s< p_{n+1}^2$ and let's assume it is composite. We have proven above that $s$ is not divisible by $p_1, p_2, dots, p_n$. This means that the first candidate prime factor is actually $geq p_{n+1}$. However, since $s$ is composite, it has a second prime factor and this also needs to be $geq p_{n+1}$. Thus $sgeq p_{n+1}^2$ which is a contradiction. This completes the overall proof!
Extra note: we have developed a way of constructing the first $n$ primes. However, since it is not clear how the sequence $(r_1',dots,r_n')$ is chosen in practice, the method is not particularly computationally efficient to put it mildly.
edited 11 mins ago
answered 3 hours ago
Stan TendijckStan Tendijck
1,541310
1,541310
$begingroup$
Thanks for the verification
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Amazing, but I think I know the pattern for $r$.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I apologise in advance for the parcing of the following but these are the patterns for the bigger ones n = 10: (format = (r1,r2,r3,r4,r5,r6,r7,r8,r9,r10)), [(1, 1, 1, 2, 9, 3, 5, 13, 19, 24),31], [(1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 11, 4, 9, 11, 12), 1]. n = 9: [(1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 7, 5), 29][(1, 2, 4, 3, 7, 7, 14, 14, 20),1]. n = 8: [(1, 2, 1, 5, 7, 11, 11, 15), 23] [(1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 5, 16, 18), 1]. n = 7: [(1, 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 13), 19] [(1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 4, 15), 1]
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I would be amazed if you can confirm your pattern here
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
It might have to wait till tomorrow because I have a test in the morning and need some sleep.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Thanks for the verification
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Amazing, but I think I know the pattern for $r$.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I apologise in advance for the parcing of the following but these are the patterns for the bigger ones n = 10: (format = (r1,r2,r3,r4,r5,r6,r7,r8,r9,r10)), [(1, 1, 1, 2, 9, 3, 5, 13, 19, 24),31], [(1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 11, 4, 9, 11, 12), 1]. n = 9: [(1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 7, 5), 29][(1, 2, 4, 3, 7, 7, 14, 14, 20),1]. n = 8: [(1, 2, 1, 5, 7, 11, 11, 15), 23] [(1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 5, 16, 18), 1]. n = 7: [(1, 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 13), 19] [(1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 4, 15), 1]
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I would be amazed if you can confirm your pattern here
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
It might have to wait till tomorrow because I have a test in the morning and need some sleep.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for the verification
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for the verification
$endgroup$
– user644904
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Amazing, but I think I know the pattern for $r$.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Amazing, but I think I know the pattern for $r$.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I apologise in advance for the parcing of the following but these are the patterns for the bigger ones n = 10: (format = (r1,r2,r3,r4,r5,r6,r7,r8,r9,r10)), [(1, 1, 1, 2, 9, 3, 5, 13, 19, 24),31], [(1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 11, 4, 9, 11, 12), 1]. n = 9: [(1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 7, 5), 29][(1, 2, 4, 3, 7, 7, 14, 14, 20),1]. n = 8: [(1, 2, 1, 5, 7, 11, 11, 15), 23] [(1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 5, 16, 18), 1]. n = 7: [(1, 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 13), 19] [(1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 4, 15), 1]
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I apologise in advance for the parcing of the following but these are the patterns for the bigger ones n = 10: (format = (r1,r2,r3,r4,r5,r6,r7,r8,r9,r10)), [(1, 1, 1, 2, 9, 3, 5, 13, 19, 24),31], [(1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 11, 4, 9, 11, 12), 1]. n = 9: [(1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 7, 5), 29][(1, 2, 4, 3, 7, 7, 14, 14, 20),1]. n = 8: [(1, 2, 1, 5, 7, 11, 11, 15), 23] [(1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 5, 16, 18), 1]. n = 7: [(1, 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 13), 19] [(1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 4, 15), 1]
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I would be amazed if you can confirm your pattern here
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I would be amazed if you can confirm your pattern here
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
It might have to wait till tomorrow because I have a test in the morning and need some sleep.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
It might have to wait till tomorrow because I have a test in the morning and need some sleep.
$endgroup$
– user644904
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
user644904 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user644904 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user644904 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user644904 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f3113307%2fare-prime-numbers-really-random%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
1
$begingroup$
Just one question, what do you mean with second smallest congruence?
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@StanTendijck um the second smallest x
$endgroup$
– user644904
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@user644904 Pretty interesting observation in my opinion.
$endgroup$
– Larry
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I am going to code it up. I'll get back to you in approximately 15 minutes.
$endgroup$
– Stan Tendijck
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I believe that this can be setup a bit more cleanly: Let $p_i$ denote the $i$-th prime. For a particular $n$, define $s:=p_1p_2cdots p_n$ and $q_i:=s/p_i$ for $i=1,2,ldots,n$. Let $x_2$ be the second-smallest member of the set $$S = left{sum_{i=1}^n q_i r_i bmod s;middle|; 1 leq r_i < p_i right}$$ From there, you seem to be conjecturing that the members of $S$ in some range are exactly the primes in that range, but I'm not entirely clear on the formulation.
$endgroup$
– Blue
2 hours ago