Is the next prime number always the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers...












2












$begingroup$


Is the next prime number always the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers previously divisible by primes?



E.g. take prime number $7$, squared is $49$. The next numbers not previously divisible by $2,3,5$ are $53,59,61,67,71,73,77$ -i.e. the next number divisible by $7$ is $11 times 7$ - the next prime number times the previous one.



Similarly, take $11$: squared $121$. the next numbers not divisible by $2,3,5,7$ are: $127,131,137,139,143$. i.e. $143$ is the next number divisible by $11$, which is $13 times 11$, $13$ being the next prime in the sequence.



Is this always the case? Can it be that the next prime number in sequence is not neatly divisible by the previous one or has one in between?



Appreciate this may be a silly question, i'm not a mathematician.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




David is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$



put on hold as unclear what you're asking by mrtaurho, Dietrich Burde, YiFan, Lee David Chung Lin, Parcly Taxel 18 hours ago


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.














  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Your description is confusing--for instance, if the current prime number is $7$, then "the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers divisible by primes we already have" would be $77$, which is not the next prime (the next prime is $11$).
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See Sieve of Eratosthenes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
    $endgroup$
    – mfl
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    sorry, i mean that 77 is the next prime, times the previous prime. ill edit to clarify
    $endgroup$
    – David
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to Math Stack Exchange. Are you saying that, if $p_n$ is the $n^{th}$ prime number, then the next composite number after $p_n^2$ not divisible by $p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}$ is $p_ntimes p_{n+1}$?
    $endgroup$
    – J. W. Tanner
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Hi. Your title & first sentence still don't make sense, a prime isn't divisible by anything but itself & 1. What are you asking? Use enough words, phrases & sentences to say what you mean. Clarify via edits, not commments.
    $endgroup$
    – philipxy
    20 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


Is the next prime number always the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers previously divisible by primes?



E.g. take prime number $7$, squared is $49$. The next numbers not previously divisible by $2,3,5$ are $53,59,61,67,71,73,77$ -i.e. the next number divisible by $7$ is $11 times 7$ - the next prime number times the previous one.



Similarly, take $11$: squared $121$. the next numbers not divisible by $2,3,5,7$ are: $127,131,137,139,143$. i.e. $143$ is the next number divisible by $11$, which is $13 times 11$, $13$ being the next prime in the sequence.



Is this always the case? Can it be that the next prime number in sequence is not neatly divisible by the previous one or has one in between?



Appreciate this may be a silly question, i'm not a mathematician.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




David is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$



put on hold as unclear what you're asking by mrtaurho, Dietrich Burde, YiFan, Lee David Chung Lin, Parcly Taxel 18 hours ago


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.














  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Your description is confusing--for instance, if the current prime number is $7$, then "the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers divisible by primes we already have" would be $77$, which is not the next prime (the next prime is $11$).
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See Sieve of Eratosthenes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
    $endgroup$
    – mfl
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    sorry, i mean that 77 is the next prime, times the previous prime. ill edit to clarify
    $endgroup$
    – David
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to Math Stack Exchange. Are you saying that, if $p_n$ is the $n^{th}$ prime number, then the next composite number after $p_n^2$ not divisible by $p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}$ is $p_ntimes p_{n+1}$?
    $endgroup$
    – J. W. Tanner
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Hi. Your title & first sentence still don't make sense, a prime isn't divisible by anything but itself & 1. What are you asking? Use enough words, phrases & sentences to say what you mean. Clarify via edits, not commments.
    $endgroup$
    – philipxy
    20 hours ago














2












2








2


2



$begingroup$


Is the next prime number always the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers previously divisible by primes?



E.g. take prime number $7$, squared is $49$. The next numbers not previously divisible by $2,3,5$ are $53,59,61,67,71,73,77$ -i.e. the next number divisible by $7$ is $11 times 7$ - the next prime number times the previous one.



Similarly, take $11$: squared $121$. the next numbers not divisible by $2,3,5,7$ are: $127,131,137,139,143$. i.e. $143$ is the next number divisible by $11$, which is $13 times 11$, $13$ being the next prime in the sequence.



Is this always the case? Can it be that the next prime number in sequence is not neatly divisible by the previous one or has one in between?



Appreciate this may be a silly question, i'm not a mathematician.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




David is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Is the next prime number always the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers previously divisible by primes?



E.g. take prime number $7$, squared is $49$. The next numbers not previously divisible by $2,3,5$ are $53,59,61,67,71,73,77$ -i.e. the next number divisible by $7$ is $11 times 7$ - the next prime number times the previous one.



Similarly, take $11$: squared $121$. the next numbers not divisible by $2,3,5,7$ are: $127,131,137,139,143$. i.e. $143$ is the next number divisible by $11$, which is $13 times 11$, $13$ being the next prime in the sequence.



Is this always the case? Can it be that the next prime number in sequence is not neatly divisible by the previous one or has one in between?



Appreciate this may be a silly question, i'm not a mathematician.







elementary-number-theory prime-numbers






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




David is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




David is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









Mr. Brooks

43411338




43411338






New contributor




David is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









DavidDavid

1195




1195




New contributor




David is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





David is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






David is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




put on hold as unclear what you're asking by mrtaurho, Dietrich Burde, YiFan, Lee David Chung Lin, Parcly Taxel 18 hours ago


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









put on hold as unclear what you're asking by mrtaurho, Dietrich Burde, YiFan, Lee David Chung Lin, Parcly Taxel 18 hours ago


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Your description is confusing--for instance, if the current prime number is $7$, then "the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers divisible by primes we already have" would be $77$, which is not the next prime (the next prime is $11$).
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See Sieve of Eratosthenes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
    $endgroup$
    – mfl
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    sorry, i mean that 77 is the next prime, times the previous prime. ill edit to clarify
    $endgroup$
    – David
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to Math Stack Exchange. Are you saying that, if $p_n$ is the $n^{th}$ prime number, then the next composite number after $p_n^2$ not divisible by $p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}$ is $p_ntimes p_{n+1}$?
    $endgroup$
    – J. W. Tanner
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Hi. Your title & first sentence still don't make sense, a prime isn't divisible by anything but itself & 1. What are you asking? Use enough words, phrases & sentences to say what you mean. Clarify via edits, not commments.
    $endgroup$
    – philipxy
    20 hours ago














  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Your description is confusing--for instance, if the current prime number is $7$, then "the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers divisible by primes we already have" would be $77$, which is not the next prime (the next prime is $11$).
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See Sieve of Eratosthenes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
    $endgroup$
    – mfl
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    sorry, i mean that 77 is the next prime, times the previous prime. ill edit to clarify
    $endgroup$
    – David
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to Math Stack Exchange. Are you saying that, if $p_n$ is the $n^{th}$ prime number, then the next composite number after $p_n^2$ not divisible by $p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}$ is $p_ntimes p_{n+1}$?
    $endgroup$
    – J. W. Tanner
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Hi. Your title & first sentence still don't make sense, a prime isn't divisible by anything but itself & 1. What are you asking? Use enough words, phrases & sentences to say what you mean. Clarify via edits, not commments.
    $endgroup$
    – philipxy
    20 hours ago








11




11




$begingroup$
Your description is confusing--for instance, if the current prime number is $7$, then "the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers divisible by primes we already have" would be $77$, which is not the next prime (the next prime is $11$).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
yesterday




$begingroup$
Your description is confusing--for instance, if the current prime number is $7$, then "the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers divisible by primes we already have" would be $77$, which is not the next prime (the next prime is $11$).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
See Sieve of Eratosthenes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
$endgroup$
– mfl
yesterday




$begingroup$
See Sieve of Eratosthenes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
$endgroup$
– mfl
yesterday












$begingroup$
sorry, i mean that 77 is the next prime, times the previous prime. ill edit to clarify
$endgroup$
– David
yesterday




$begingroup$
sorry, i mean that 77 is the next prime, times the previous prime. ill edit to clarify
$endgroup$
– David
yesterday












$begingroup$
Welcome to Math Stack Exchange. Are you saying that, if $p_n$ is the $n^{th}$ prime number, then the next composite number after $p_n^2$ not divisible by $p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}$ is $p_ntimes p_{n+1}$?
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
yesterday






$begingroup$
Welcome to Math Stack Exchange. Are you saying that, if $p_n$ is the $n^{th}$ prime number, then the next composite number after $p_n^2$ not divisible by $p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}$ is $p_ntimes p_{n+1}$?
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
yesterday






2




2




$begingroup$
Hi. Your title & first sentence still don't make sense, a prime isn't divisible by anything but itself & 1. What are you asking? Use enough words, phrases & sentences to say what you mean. Clarify via edits, not commments.
$endgroup$
– philipxy
20 hours ago




$begingroup$
Hi. Your title & first sentence still don't make sense, a prime isn't divisible by anything but itself & 1. What are you asking? Use enough words, phrases & sentences to say what you mean. Clarify via edits, not commments.
$endgroup$
– philipxy
20 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Think of it this way. Let $p_k$ be the $k$ prime. Let $n$ be the first composite number greater than $p_k$ so that $n$ is not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$.



Claim: $n = p_kcdot p_{k+1}$.



Pf:



What else could it be? $n$ must have a prime factors. And those prime factor must be greater the $p_{k+1}$. The smallest number with at least two prime factors all bigger than $p_{k-1}$ must be $p_{k}cdot p_{k+1}$ because $p_k, p_{k+1}$ are the smallest choices for prime factors and the fewer prime factors the smaller the number will be.



so $n= p_kp_{k+1}$ IF $n$ has at least two prime factors.



So if $nne p_kp_{k+1}$ then 1) $n le p_kp_{k+1}$ and 2) $n$ has only one prime factor so $n=q^m$ for some prime $q$ and integer $m$.



If so, then $q ge p_{k+1}$ then $q^m ge p_{k+1}^mge p_{k+1}^2 > p_k*p_{k+1}$ which is a contradiction so $q= p_k$ and $n = p_k^m > p_k^2$. As $n$ is the smallest possible number, $n = p_k^3$ and $p_k^3 < p_k*p_{k+1}$.



That would mean $p_k^2 < p_{k+1}$.



This is impossible by Bertrands postulate.



So indeed the next composite number not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$ larger than $p_k^2$ is $p_kp_{k+1}$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    gotcha. its like a numerical logical tautology. wish I could mark both correct. no disrespect to eric who also had a good answer and got there first, but this one i understood a bit easier.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    Actually on reading eric's it seems we really more or less have the same answer.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    yes, i just meant i personally found your phrasing a little easier to understand, not being a mathematician, but both are good answers
    $endgroup$
    – David
    23 hours ago



















5












$begingroup$

Yes. First let me clarify what you are trying to say. Suppose we have a prime number $p$, and consider the smallest integer $n$ greater than $p^2$ which is a multiple of $p$ but which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$. The pattern you are observing is then that $n/p$ is the smallest prime number greater than $p$.



This is indeed true in general. To prove it, note that the multiples of $p$ are just numbers of the form $ap$ where $a$ is an integer. So in finding the smallest such multiple $n$ which is not divisible by any primes less than $p$, you are just finding the smallest integer $a>p$ which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$ and setting $n=ap$. Every prime factor of this $a$ is greater than or equal to $p$. Let us first suppose that $a$ has a prime factor $q$ which is greater than $p$. Then by minimality of $a$, we must have $a=q$ (otherwise $q$ would be a smaller candidate for $a$). Moreover, by minimality $a$ must be the smallest prime greater than $p$ (any smaller such prime would be a smaller candidate for $a$). So, $a=n/p$ is indeed the smallest prime greater than $p$.



The remaining case is that $a$ has no prime factors greater than $p$, which means $p$ is its only prime factor. That is, $a$ is a power of $p$. Then $ageq p^2$ (and in fact $a=p^2$ by minimality). As before, $a$ must be less than any prime greater than $p$ by minimality. This means there are no prime numbers $q$ such that $p<q<p^2$. However, this is impossible, for instance by Bertrand's postulate (or see There is a prime between $n$ and $n^2$, without Bertrand for a simpler direct proof).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Does your solution mean that we can predict the next prime $p_{k+1}$ if we know the prime $p_k$ and apply the op method?
    $endgroup$
    – user25406
    22 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Well, you can find the next prime by the OP's method. I'm not sure how this is a "prediction", though.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You are right. I realized that we are looking for a number $M=p_k*p_{k+1}=p_{k}^2 +m*p_k=p_k*(p_k+m)$ with $m=2,4,6,8...$ and $p_{k+1}=p_k+m$. So we can't predict the next prime since we have to check different values of $m$. For twin primes, $m=2$ and we just don't know which particular value of $m$ is going to provide the next prime.
    $endgroup$
    – user25406
    9 hours ago





















0












$begingroup$

Yes. It follows from each composite, needing a least prime factor. Since you've eliminated possibilities up to $p_{k}$, the least prime factor of $frac{N}{p_k}$ for N greater than the square, needs fall to the next non eliminated number (the next prime in this case). This can be generalized to arithmetic progressions in general that is closed under multiplication (aka form a magma along with multiication), the next one not eliminated by previous members as a least in progression factor, is the product of the next two not used up.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Think of it this way. Let $p_k$ be the $k$ prime. Let $n$ be the first composite number greater than $p_k$ so that $n$ is not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$.



    Claim: $n = p_kcdot p_{k+1}$.



    Pf:



    What else could it be? $n$ must have a prime factors. And those prime factor must be greater the $p_{k+1}$. The smallest number with at least two prime factors all bigger than $p_{k-1}$ must be $p_{k}cdot p_{k+1}$ because $p_k, p_{k+1}$ are the smallest choices for prime factors and the fewer prime factors the smaller the number will be.



    so $n= p_kp_{k+1}$ IF $n$ has at least two prime factors.



    So if $nne p_kp_{k+1}$ then 1) $n le p_kp_{k+1}$ and 2) $n$ has only one prime factor so $n=q^m$ for some prime $q$ and integer $m$.



    If so, then $q ge p_{k+1}$ then $q^m ge p_{k+1}^mge p_{k+1}^2 > p_k*p_{k+1}$ which is a contradiction so $q= p_k$ and $n = p_k^m > p_k^2$. As $n$ is the smallest possible number, $n = p_k^3$ and $p_k^3 < p_k*p_{k+1}$.



    That would mean $p_k^2 < p_{k+1}$.



    This is impossible by Bertrands postulate.



    So indeed the next composite number not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$ larger than $p_k^2$ is $p_kp_{k+1}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      gotcha. its like a numerical logical tautology. wish I could mark both correct. no disrespect to eric who also had a good answer and got there first, but this one i understood a bit easier.
      $endgroup$
      – David
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Actually on reading eric's it seems we really more or less have the same answer.
      $endgroup$
      – fleablood
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      yes, i just meant i personally found your phrasing a little easier to understand, not being a mathematician, but both are good answers
      $endgroup$
      – David
      23 hours ago
















    3












    $begingroup$

    Think of it this way. Let $p_k$ be the $k$ prime. Let $n$ be the first composite number greater than $p_k$ so that $n$ is not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$.



    Claim: $n = p_kcdot p_{k+1}$.



    Pf:



    What else could it be? $n$ must have a prime factors. And those prime factor must be greater the $p_{k+1}$. The smallest number with at least two prime factors all bigger than $p_{k-1}$ must be $p_{k}cdot p_{k+1}$ because $p_k, p_{k+1}$ are the smallest choices for prime factors and the fewer prime factors the smaller the number will be.



    so $n= p_kp_{k+1}$ IF $n$ has at least two prime factors.



    So if $nne p_kp_{k+1}$ then 1) $n le p_kp_{k+1}$ and 2) $n$ has only one prime factor so $n=q^m$ for some prime $q$ and integer $m$.



    If so, then $q ge p_{k+1}$ then $q^m ge p_{k+1}^mge p_{k+1}^2 > p_k*p_{k+1}$ which is a contradiction so $q= p_k$ and $n = p_k^m > p_k^2$. As $n$ is the smallest possible number, $n = p_k^3$ and $p_k^3 < p_k*p_{k+1}$.



    That would mean $p_k^2 < p_{k+1}$.



    This is impossible by Bertrands postulate.



    So indeed the next composite number not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$ larger than $p_k^2$ is $p_kp_{k+1}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      gotcha. its like a numerical logical tautology. wish I could mark both correct. no disrespect to eric who also had a good answer and got there first, but this one i understood a bit easier.
      $endgroup$
      – David
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Actually on reading eric's it seems we really more or less have the same answer.
      $endgroup$
      – fleablood
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      yes, i just meant i personally found your phrasing a little easier to understand, not being a mathematician, but both are good answers
      $endgroup$
      – David
      23 hours ago














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    Think of it this way. Let $p_k$ be the $k$ prime. Let $n$ be the first composite number greater than $p_k$ so that $n$ is not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$.



    Claim: $n = p_kcdot p_{k+1}$.



    Pf:



    What else could it be? $n$ must have a prime factors. And those prime factor must be greater the $p_{k+1}$. The smallest number with at least two prime factors all bigger than $p_{k-1}$ must be $p_{k}cdot p_{k+1}$ because $p_k, p_{k+1}$ are the smallest choices for prime factors and the fewer prime factors the smaller the number will be.



    so $n= p_kp_{k+1}$ IF $n$ has at least two prime factors.



    So if $nne p_kp_{k+1}$ then 1) $n le p_kp_{k+1}$ and 2) $n$ has only one prime factor so $n=q^m$ for some prime $q$ and integer $m$.



    If so, then $q ge p_{k+1}$ then $q^m ge p_{k+1}^mge p_{k+1}^2 > p_k*p_{k+1}$ which is a contradiction so $q= p_k$ and $n = p_k^m > p_k^2$. As $n$ is the smallest possible number, $n = p_k^3$ and $p_k^3 < p_k*p_{k+1}$.



    That would mean $p_k^2 < p_{k+1}$.



    This is impossible by Bertrands postulate.



    So indeed the next composite number not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$ larger than $p_k^2$ is $p_kp_{k+1}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Think of it this way. Let $p_k$ be the $k$ prime. Let $n$ be the first composite number greater than $p_k$ so that $n$ is not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$.



    Claim: $n = p_kcdot p_{k+1}$.



    Pf:



    What else could it be? $n$ must have a prime factors. And those prime factor must be greater the $p_{k+1}$. The smallest number with at least two prime factors all bigger than $p_{k-1}$ must be $p_{k}cdot p_{k+1}$ because $p_k, p_{k+1}$ are the smallest choices for prime factors and the fewer prime factors the smaller the number will be.



    so $n= p_kp_{k+1}$ IF $n$ has at least two prime factors.



    So if $nne p_kp_{k+1}$ then 1) $n le p_kp_{k+1}$ and 2) $n$ has only one prime factor so $n=q^m$ for some prime $q$ and integer $m$.



    If so, then $q ge p_{k+1}$ then $q^m ge p_{k+1}^mge p_{k+1}^2 > p_k*p_{k+1}$ which is a contradiction so $q= p_k$ and $n = p_k^m > p_k^2$. As $n$ is the smallest possible number, $n = p_k^3$ and $p_k^3 < p_k*p_{k+1}$.



    That would mean $p_k^2 < p_{k+1}$.



    This is impossible by Bertrands postulate.



    So indeed the next composite number not divisible by $p_1,..., p_{k-1}$ larger than $p_k^2$ is $p_kp_{k+1}$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    fleabloodfleablood

    73.4k22791




    73.4k22791












    • $begingroup$
      gotcha. its like a numerical logical tautology. wish I could mark both correct. no disrespect to eric who also had a good answer and got there first, but this one i understood a bit easier.
      $endgroup$
      – David
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Actually on reading eric's it seems we really more or less have the same answer.
      $endgroup$
      – fleablood
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      yes, i just meant i personally found your phrasing a little easier to understand, not being a mathematician, but both are good answers
      $endgroup$
      – David
      23 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      gotcha. its like a numerical logical tautology. wish I could mark both correct. no disrespect to eric who also had a good answer and got there first, but this one i understood a bit easier.
      $endgroup$
      – David
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Actually on reading eric's it seems we really more or less have the same answer.
      $endgroup$
      – fleablood
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      yes, i just meant i personally found your phrasing a little easier to understand, not being a mathematician, but both are good answers
      $endgroup$
      – David
      23 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    gotcha. its like a numerical logical tautology. wish I could mark both correct. no disrespect to eric who also had a good answer and got there first, but this one i understood a bit easier.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    gotcha. its like a numerical logical tautology. wish I could mark both correct. no disrespect to eric who also had a good answer and got there first, but this one i understood a bit easier.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    yesterday














    $begingroup$
    Actually on reading eric's it seems we really more or less have the same answer.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Actually on reading eric's it seems we really more or less have the same answer.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    yes, i just meant i personally found your phrasing a little easier to understand, not being a mathematician, but both are good answers
    $endgroup$
    – David
    23 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    yes, i just meant i personally found your phrasing a little easier to understand, not being a mathematician, but both are good answers
    $endgroup$
    – David
    23 hours ago











    5












    $begingroup$

    Yes. First let me clarify what you are trying to say. Suppose we have a prime number $p$, and consider the smallest integer $n$ greater than $p^2$ which is a multiple of $p$ but which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$. The pattern you are observing is then that $n/p$ is the smallest prime number greater than $p$.



    This is indeed true in general. To prove it, note that the multiples of $p$ are just numbers of the form $ap$ where $a$ is an integer. So in finding the smallest such multiple $n$ which is not divisible by any primes less than $p$, you are just finding the smallest integer $a>p$ which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$ and setting $n=ap$. Every prime factor of this $a$ is greater than or equal to $p$. Let us first suppose that $a$ has a prime factor $q$ which is greater than $p$. Then by minimality of $a$, we must have $a=q$ (otherwise $q$ would be a smaller candidate for $a$). Moreover, by minimality $a$ must be the smallest prime greater than $p$ (any smaller such prime would be a smaller candidate for $a$). So, $a=n/p$ is indeed the smallest prime greater than $p$.



    The remaining case is that $a$ has no prime factors greater than $p$, which means $p$ is its only prime factor. That is, $a$ is a power of $p$. Then $ageq p^2$ (and in fact $a=p^2$ by minimality). As before, $a$ must be less than any prime greater than $p$ by minimality. This means there are no prime numbers $q$ such that $p<q<p^2$. However, this is impossible, for instance by Bertrand's postulate (or see There is a prime between $n$ and $n^2$, without Bertrand for a simpler direct proof).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Does your solution mean that we can predict the next prime $p_{k+1}$ if we know the prime $p_k$ and apply the op method?
      $endgroup$
      – user25406
      22 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Well, you can find the next prime by the OP's method. I'm not sure how this is a "prediction", though.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      20 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You are right. I realized that we are looking for a number $M=p_k*p_{k+1}=p_{k}^2 +m*p_k=p_k*(p_k+m)$ with $m=2,4,6,8...$ and $p_{k+1}=p_k+m$. So we can't predict the next prime since we have to check different values of $m$. For twin primes, $m=2$ and we just don't know which particular value of $m$ is going to provide the next prime.
      $endgroup$
      – user25406
      9 hours ago


















    5












    $begingroup$

    Yes. First let me clarify what you are trying to say. Suppose we have a prime number $p$, and consider the smallest integer $n$ greater than $p^2$ which is a multiple of $p$ but which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$. The pattern you are observing is then that $n/p$ is the smallest prime number greater than $p$.



    This is indeed true in general. To prove it, note that the multiples of $p$ are just numbers of the form $ap$ where $a$ is an integer. So in finding the smallest such multiple $n$ which is not divisible by any primes less than $p$, you are just finding the smallest integer $a>p$ which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$ and setting $n=ap$. Every prime factor of this $a$ is greater than or equal to $p$. Let us first suppose that $a$ has a prime factor $q$ which is greater than $p$. Then by minimality of $a$, we must have $a=q$ (otherwise $q$ would be a smaller candidate for $a$). Moreover, by minimality $a$ must be the smallest prime greater than $p$ (any smaller such prime would be a smaller candidate for $a$). So, $a=n/p$ is indeed the smallest prime greater than $p$.



    The remaining case is that $a$ has no prime factors greater than $p$, which means $p$ is its only prime factor. That is, $a$ is a power of $p$. Then $ageq p^2$ (and in fact $a=p^2$ by minimality). As before, $a$ must be less than any prime greater than $p$ by minimality. This means there are no prime numbers $q$ such that $p<q<p^2$. However, this is impossible, for instance by Bertrand's postulate (or see There is a prime between $n$ and $n^2$, without Bertrand for a simpler direct proof).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Does your solution mean that we can predict the next prime $p_{k+1}$ if we know the prime $p_k$ and apply the op method?
      $endgroup$
      – user25406
      22 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Well, you can find the next prime by the OP's method. I'm not sure how this is a "prediction", though.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      20 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You are right. I realized that we are looking for a number $M=p_k*p_{k+1}=p_{k}^2 +m*p_k=p_k*(p_k+m)$ with $m=2,4,6,8...$ and $p_{k+1}=p_k+m$. So we can't predict the next prime since we have to check different values of $m$. For twin primes, $m=2$ and we just don't know which particular value of $m$ is going to provide the next prime.
      $endgroup$
      – user25406
      9 hours ago
















    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    Yes. First let me clarify what you are trying to say. Suppose we have a prime number $p$, and consider the smallest integer $n$ greater than $p^2$ which is a multiple of $p$ but which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$. The pattern you are observing is then that $n/p$ is the smallest prime number greater than $p$.



    This is indeed true in general. To prove it, note that the multiples of $p$ are just numbers of the form $ap$ where $a$ is an integer. So in finding the smallest such multiple $n$ which is not divisible by any primes less than $p$, you are just finding the smallest integer $a>p$ which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$ and setting $n=ap$. Every prime factor of this $a$ is greater than or equal to $p$. Let us first suppose that $a$ has a prime factor $q$ which is greater than $p$. Then by minimality of $a$, we must have $a=q$ (otherwise $q$ would be a smaller candidate for $a$). Moreover, by minimality $a$ must be the smallest prime greater than $p$ (any smaller such prime would be a smaller candidate for $a$). So, $a=n/p$ is indeed the smallest prime greater than $p$.



    The remaining case is that $a$ has no prime factors greater than $p$, which means $p$ is its only prime factor. That is, $a$ is a power of $p$. Then $ageq p^2$ (and in fact $a=p^2$ by minimality). As before, $a$ must be less than any prime greater than $p$ by minimality. This means there are no prime numbers $q$ such that $p<q<p^2$. However, this is impossible, for instance by Bertrand's postulate (or see There is a prime between $n$ and $n^2$, without Bertrand for a simpler direct proof).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Yes. First let me clarify what you are trying to say. Suppose we have a prime number $p$, and consider the smallest integer $n$ greater than $p^2$ which is a multiple of $p$ but which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$. The pattern you are observing is then that $n/p$ is the smallest prime number greater than $p$.



    This is indeed true in general. To prove it, note that the multiples of $p$ are just numbers of the form $ap$ where $a$ is an integer. So in finding the smallest such multiple $n$ which is not divisible by any primes less than $p$, you are just finding the smallest integer $a>p$ which is not divisible by any prime less than $p$ and setting $n=ap$. Every prime factor of this $a$ is greater than or equal to $p$. Let us first suppose that $a$ has a prime factor $q$ which is greater than $p$. Then by minimality of $a$, we must have $a=q$ (otherwise $q$ would be a smaller candidate for $a$). Moreover, by minimality $a$ must be the smallest prime greater than $p$ (any smaller such prime would be a smaller candidate for $a$). So, $a=n/p$ is indeed the smallest prime greater than $p$.



    The remaining case is that $a$ has no prime factors greater than $p$, which means $p$ is its only prime factor. That is, $a$ is a power of $p$. Then $ageq p^2$ (and in fact $a=p^2$ by minimality). As before, $a$ must be less than any prime greater than $p$ by minimality. This means there are no prime numbers $q$ such that $p<q<p^2$. However, this is impossible, for instance by Bertrand's postulate (or see There is a prime between $n$ and $n^2$, without Bertrand for a simpler direct proof).







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered yesterday









    Eric WofseyEric Wofsey

    190k14216349




    190k14216349












    • $begingroup$
      Does your solution mean that we can predict the next prime $p_{k+1}$ if we know the prime $p_k$ and apply the op method?
      $endgroup$
      – user25406
      22 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Well, you can find the next prime by the OP's method. I'm not sure how this is a "prediction", though.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      20 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You are right. I realized that we are looking for a number $M=p_k*p_{k+1}=p_{k}^2 +m*p_k=p_k*(p_k+m)$ with $m=2,4,6,8...$ and $p_{k+1}=p_k+m$. So we can't predict the next prime since we have to check different values of $m$. For twin primes, $m=2$ and we just don't know which particular value of $m$ is going to provide the next prime.
      $endgroup$
      – user25406
      9 hours ago




















    • $begingroup$
      Does your solution mean that we can predict the next prime $p_{k+1}$ if we know the prime $p_k$ and apply the op method?
      $endgroup$
      – user25406
      22 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Well, you can find the next prime by the OP's method. I'm not sure how this is a "prediction", though.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      20 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You are right. I realized that we are looking for a number $M=p_k*p_{k+1}=p_{k}^2 +m*p_k=p_k*(p_k+m)$ with $m=2,4,6,8...$ and $p_{k+1}=p_k+m$. So we can't predict the next prime since we have to check different values of $m$. For twin primes, $m=2$ and we just don't know which particular value of $m$ is going to provide the next prime.
      $endgroup$
      – user25406
      9 hours ago


















    $begingroup$
    Does your solution mean that we can predict the next prime $p_{k+1}$ if we know the prime $p_k$ and apply the op method?
    $endgroup$
    – user25406
    22 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Does your solution mean that we can predict the next prime $p_{k+1}$ if we know the prime $p_k$ and apply the op method?
    $endgroup$
    – user25406
    22 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Well, you can find the next prime by the OP's method. I'm not sure how this is a "prediction", though.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    20 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Well, you can find the next prime by the OP's method. I'm not sure how this is a "prediction", though.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    20 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    You are right. I realized that we are looking for a number $M=p_k*p_{k+1}=p_{k}^2 +m*p_k=p_k*(p_k+m)$ with $m=2,4,6,8...$ and $p_{k+1}=p_k+m$. So we can't predict the next prime since we have to check different values of $m$. For twin primes, $m=2$ and we just don't know which particular value of $m$ is going to provide the next prime.
    $endgroup$
    – user25406
    9 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    You are right. I realized that we are looking for a number $M=p_k*p_{k+1}=p_{k}^2 +m*p_k=p_k*(p_k+m)$ with $m=2,4,6,8...$ and $p_{k+1}=p_k+m$. So we can't predict the next prime since we have to check different values of $m$. For twin primes, $m=2$ and we just don't know which particular value of $m$ is going to provide the next prime.
    $endgroup$
    – user25406
    9 hours ago













    0












    $begingroup$

    Yes. It follows from each composite, needing a least prime factor. Since you've eliminated possibilities up to $p_{k}$, the least prime factor of $frac{N}{p_k}$ for N greater than the square, needs fall to the next non eliminated number (the next prime in this case). This can be generalized to arithmetic progressions in general that is closed under multiplication (aka form a magma along with multiication), the next one not eliminated by previous members as a least in progression factor, is the product of the next two not used up.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      Yes. It follows from each composite, needing a least prime factor. Since you've eliminated possibilities up to $p_{k}$, the least prime factor of $frac{N}{p_k}$ for N greater than the square, needs fall to the next non eliminated number (the next prime in this case). This can be generalized to arithmetic progressions in general that is closed under multiplication (aka form a magma along with multiication), the next one not eliminated by previous members as a least in progression factor, is the product of the next two not used up.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Yes. It follows from each composite, needing a least prime factor. Since you've eliminated possibilities up to $p_{k}$, the least prime factor of $frac{N}{p_k}$ for N greater than the square, needs fall to the next non eliminated number (the next prime in this case). This can be generalized to arithmetic progressions in general that is closed under multiplication (aka form a magma along with multiication), the next one not eliminated by previous members as a least in progression factor, is the product of the next two not used up.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Yes. It follows from each composite, needing a least prime factor. Since you've eliminated possibilities up to $p_{k}$, the least prime factor of $frac{N}{p_k}$ for N greater than the square, needs fall to the next non eliminated number (the next prime in this case). This can be generalized to arithmetic progressions in general that is closed under multiplication (aka form a magma along with multiication), the next one not eliminated by previous members as a least in progression factor, is the product of the next two not used up.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 20 hours ago









        Roddy MacPheeRoddy MacPhee

        517118




        517118















            Popular posts from this blog

            Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

            What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029