MATH 406: Homework 3.

2 Solutions

1. Find a set of n consecutive composite integers where n is your age in years.

Solution: The general formula is that for any n the following sequence of n integers contains
only composites:

(n + 1)! + 2, (n + 1)! + 3, ..., (n + 1)! + (n + 1)

2. (a) Using the PNT approximately how many primes are there less than 100?
100
Solution: π(100) ≈ ln(100) ≈ 21.7
(b) Using the PNT approximately how many primes are there less than 1000?
1000
Solution: π(100) ≈ ln(1000) ≈ 144.8
(c) Using the PNT approximately how many primes are there less than 1000000?
1000000
Solution: π(100) ≈ ln(1000000) ≈ 72382.4
(d) Using the PNT Corrolary what is the 50000th prime, approximately?
Solution: p50000 ≈ 50000 ln(50000) ≈ 540988.9
(e) Find the exact number of primes less than 100. How does your answer compare to (a)?
Solution: There are 25 primes less than 100 so my answer to (a) is not totally crazy.

3. Find a prime between n and 2n for:

(a) n = 10
Solution: 17 is prime.
(b) n = 31415
Solution: 39989 is prime.
(c) n = 711
Solution: 719 is prime.
4. Verify the Goldbach Conjecture for:

(a) n = 100
Solution: 100 = 3 + 97
(b) n = 462
Solution: 462 = 5 + 457
(c) n = 4538674
Solution: 4538674 = 3 + 4538671

5. Prove that there are infinitely many primes which are not one of a pair of twin primes.
Solution: By Dirichlet’s Theorem on Arithmetic Progressions we know that 15n + 7 for
n = 1, 2, 3, ... contains infinitely many primes. Note however that none of these can be one of
a pair of twin primes since 15n + 5 = 5(n + 3) and 15n + 9 = 3(5n + 3) are composite.
6. Use Bertrand’s Postulate to show that every positive integer n ≥ 7 is the sum of distinct
primes.
Solution: We’ll actually prove that every positive integers n ≥ 7 is the sum of distinct primes
such that the largest is at most max(11, n − 7). We proceed by strong induction but we’ll
leave the base cases for last.
Assume that this can be done for 7, ..., n − 1. We claim it can be done for n.
If n is even let m = 0.5n − 3 so then BP guarantees some prime p with 0.5n − 3 < p < n − 6.
If n is odd let m = 0.5n − 3.5 so then BP guarantees some prime p with 0.5n − 3.5 < p < n − 7.
Either way we have a prime p with 0.5n − 2.5 ≤ p ≤ n − 7.
Now observe that p ≤ n − 7 so n − p ≥ n − (n − 7) = 7 so that by the inductive assumption
n − p can be written as a sum of distinct primes the largest of which is max(11, n − p − 7). As
long as none of these primes is larger than p we have overal distinctness.
To see that this is the case note that max(11, n − p − 7) is less than or equal to both 11 and
n − p − 7. Thus if we have 11 < p and n − p − 7 < p we’re done. Well n − p − 7 < p is equivalent
to 2p > n − 7 which have because p ≥ 0.5n − 2.5 so 2p ≥ n − 5 and 11 < p we have provided
0.5n − 2.5 > 11 (because p ≥ 0.5n − 2.5) which we have provided n > 27.
Thus we just verify the base cases from n = 7 to n = 28. Excluded.