Prove that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##

  • Thread starter Math100
  • Start date
In summary: I'll quit with the rest of this post, as it is unclear to me that this is a post on how to solve the problem, and not a request for me to solve the problem.In summary, we are asked to prove that for ##n \geq 3##, ##p_{n+3}^2 < p_n p_{n+1} p_{n+2}## using the hint that ##p_{n+3}^2 < 4p_{n+2}^2 < 8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}##. We consider two cases, one where ##n=3## and one where ##n
  • #1
Math100
802
222
Homework Statement
Let ## p_{n} ## denote the nth prime number. For ## n\geq 3 ##, prove that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
[Hint: Note that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.]
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof:

Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
Then ## p_{n+3}<2p_{n+2} ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<4p_{n+2} (2p_{n+1})=8p_{n+2} p_{n+1} ##.
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Math100 said:
Homework Statement:: Let ## p_{n} ## denote the nth prime number. For ## n\geq 3 ##, prove that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
[Hint: Note that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.]
Relevant Equations:: None.

Proof:

Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
Then ## p_{n+3}<2p_{n+2} ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<4p_{n+2} (2p_{n+1})=8p_{n+2} p_{n+1} ##.
So you have applied the hint, but the work below doesn't take things any further.
Math100 said:
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.

This won't fly. You can't jump from establishing the equation for ##p_6^2## and ##p_7^2##, and then make the leap ("Therefore") to ##p_n^2##.
 
  • #3
What should I do then?
 
  • #4
You need to continue what you were doing with the hint.
 
  • #5
Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Assume ## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Then ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<11p_{n+1} p_{n+2}=p_{5} p_{n+1} p_{n+2}\leq p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
Note that ## p_{n}\geq 11 ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.
 
  • Like
Likes Maarten Havinga
  • #6
Math100 said:
Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Assume ## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Then ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<11p_{n+1} p_{n+2}=p_{5} p_{n+1} p_{n+2}\leq p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
Note that ## p_{n}\geq 11 ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.
This is much better, although there is still a lot of stuff here that doesn't need to be included. E.g. in the 4th line under Case#2, you say "Assume ## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ## for ## n\geq 5 ##."
You don't need to include Bertrand's Postulate again.

You also don't need Case 2, where n = 4.
Edit: It turns out that you do need this case.
If n = 4, the hint doesn't apply, but ##289 = 17^2 = p_{4 + 3}^2 = p_7^2 < p_4p_5p_6 = 7*11*13 = 1001##.
So the statement is proved for n = 4.


If n = 3, you're dealing with ##p_6, p_5,## and ##p_4##, which are 13, 11, and 7, respectively.
##169 = p_6^2 < 8p_1p_2 = 8\cdot11\cdot7 = 615##, so the statement is true for n = 3


If n > 3 n > 4 the smallest prime of the three primes on the right side of the statement to be proved is always ##\ge 11##, so ##p_{n+3}^3 < 8p_{n+1}p_{n + 2} < p_np_{n+1}p_{n + 2} ##.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Mark44 said:
If n > 3, the smallest prime of the three primes on the right side of the statement to be proved is always ##\ge 11##, so ##p_{n+3}^3 < 8p_{n+1}p_{n + 2} < p_np_{n+1}p_{n + 2} ##.
##p_4=7 < 8.##
 
  • #8
fresh_42 said:
##p_4=7 < 8.##
If n = 4, then ##p_{n + 3} = p_7##, which is 11, and 8 < 11.
 
  • #9
Mark44 said:
If n = 4, then ##p_{n + 3} = p_7##, which is 11, and 8 < 11.
##p_n## is relevant, not ##p_{n+3}## (compare post #1 and hint therein).
 
  • #10
fresh_42 said:
##p_n## is relevant, not ##p_{n+3}## (compare post #1 and hint therein).
Here's the problem statement and hint, from post #1.
Let ## p_{n} ## denote the nth prime number. For ## n\geq 3 ##, prove that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
[Hint: Note that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.]

My work for ##p_4## had on off-by-one error, so this prime needs its own case, contrary to what I said earlier.
##289 = p_7^2 < 8*p_5*p_6## per the hint. While it's true that ##8 > p_4 = 7##, it is nevertheless true that ##289 < p_4p_5p_6 = 7*11*13 = 1001##
For n = 5, we have ##361 = 19^2 = p_8^2 < 8p_6p_7 < p_5p_6p_7 = 11*13*17 = 2431##
For n > 5, the smallest prime in the product of the three primes, ##p_n## is at least 13, which is larger than 8.
So for any integer ##n \ge 3##, ##p_{n + 3}^2 < p_np_{n+1}p_{n+2}##.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Math100 said:
Let ## n\geq 3 ## be an integer.
Applying the Bertrand's Postulate produces:
## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ##.
That statement is not relevant at this point.
Math100 said:
Now we consider two cases.
Case #1: Suppose ## n=3 ##.
Then ## p_{6}^{2}=169<p_{3} p_{4} p_{5}=385 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=3 ##.
Case #2: Suppose ## n=4 ##.
Then ## p_{7}^{2}=289<p_{4} p_{5} p_{6}=1001 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n=4 ##.
Assume ## p_{n+1}<2p_{n} ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Two problems: 1. There is no reason to assume that, because it is implied by Bertrand's postulate. 2. You are about to use Bertrand's postulate twice. You have to state exactly how you are using it. Merely restating the postulate does not do the job.
Math100 said:
Then ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<11p_{n+1} p_{n+2}=p_{5} p_{n+1} p_{n+2}\leq p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
You have to justify the first two inequalities. Use Bertrand's postulate to do so.
Math100 said:
Note that ## p_{n}\geq 11 ## for ## n\geq 5 ##.
Thus ## p_{n+3}^{2}<4p_{n+2}^{2}<8p_{n+1} p_{n+2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##.
You've said this twice now. Once is usually enough.
Math100 said:
Therefore, ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ## for ## n\geq 3 ##.
 

FAQ: Prove that ## p_{n+3}^{2}<p_{n} p_{n+1} p_{n+2} ##

What is the significance of the inequality statement in the given proof?

The inequality statement is significant because it is a key step in proving the primality of the sequence p_n. It shows that the product of the three consecutive primes p_{n+1}, p_{n+2}, and p_{n+3} is always greater than the square of the nth prime p_n. This reinforces the idea that prime numbers become increasingly sparse as they get larger, and that there is no upper bound on the number of primes.

How is the inequality statement derived?

The inequality statement is derived using the properties of prime numbers. By definition, a prime number is only divisible by 1 and itself. Therefore, any product of consecutive prime numbers will have a greatest common divisor of 1. This means that the product will always be greater than the square of the largest prime in the sequence, which in this case is p_n.

Can the inequality statement be generalized for any sequence of consecutive primes?

Yes, the inequality statement can be generalized for any sequence of consecutive primes. This is because the properties of prime numbers hold true for any set of consecutive primes. Therefore, the product of any three consecutive primes will always be greater than the square of the largest prime in the sequence.

How does the inequality statement support the proof of the infinitude of primes?

The inequality statement supports the proof of the infinitude of primes by showing that there is no upper bound on the number of primes. If there were a finite number of primes, then eventually the product of any three consecutive primes would be larger than any possible square of a prime. However, the inequality statement shows that this is not the case, and therefore there must be an infinite number of primes.

Are there any exceptions to the inequality statement?

No, there are no exceptions to the inequality statement. This is because the properties of prime numbers hold true for all prime numbers, regardless of their size. Therefore, the statement will always hold true for any sequence of consecutive primes.

Back
Top