Friday, 30 October 2015

For ngeq6, the smallest composite number that is not a factor of n! is 2p, where p is the smallest prime bigger than n?



I'm pretty sure the following statement is true:




For n6, the smallest composite number that is not a factor of
n! is 2p, where p is the smallest prime bigger than n.





But I'm having trouble proving it.



Here is an attempt by induction. The property is true when n=6, and assume it's true for n. If n+1 isn't prime, the induction step is trivial, for the smallest prime bigger than n+1 is equal to the smallest prime bigger than n; call this prime p. But by hypothesis all composites smaller than 2p divide n!, hence (n+1)!.



The harder case is when n+1 is prime. Let q denote the next prime, i.e. the smallest prime bigger than n+1. We know by hypothesis that all composites smaller than 2(n+1) divide n!, hence (n+1)!. We also know 2(n+1) divides (n+1)!. To finish, we need to show that all composites m strictly between 2(n+1) and 2q divide (n+1)!.



This is where I get stuck. It certainly helps that the ratio qn+1 can't be larger than 2 (by Bertrand's postulate; I imagine the bound can be sharpened but I know embarrassingly little number theory). It's also obvious that the prime factors of any such composite m are all smaller than q. What I don't quite see is an argument to ensure the powers of those prime factors aren't too large.



Feel free to give alternative approaches, rather than by induction, if there is a much simpler proof I've overlooked.



Answer



A composite m with 2(n+1)<m<2q cannot be twice a prime because q is the next prime after n+1, so must be able to be factored into ab with a,b<n+1. Then a,b are separately factors of (n+1)! and ab divides (n+1)! unless a=b. We will have a2 divide (n+1)! unless a>n+12 because a,2a are both factors. But then a2>(n+1)244(n+1)2q as long as n15 by Bertrand's postulate. We can check the cases up to 15 by hand to complete the proof.


No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find lim without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...