Problems & Puzzles: Puzzles

Puzzle 167.  Primes m + 2 j & m - 2 j 

Frank Ellerman, from Hamburg, Germany asked for the sequence of m values such that m + 2 j & m - 2 j are both primes for 1<= j < = n, for n = 1, 2, 3, ....

As a matter of fact he found the first 4 m values (for n = 1, 2, 3 & 4, respectively) and Don Reble found two more (for n = 5 &6)

n

m

Author

1

5

F. Ellerman

2

9

"      "

3

15

"      "

4

50943795

"      "

5

40874929095

Don Reble

6

616517522595975

"      "
7 93487500801880185 Discovered by Jim Fougeron (7/2/02), confirmed as minimal by Phil Carmody (12/2/2002)
8 64606701602327559675 Phil Carmody (14/2/2002)

See the sequence A066081.

Example: for n = 3, m = 15 is the least number such that m - 2, m - 4, m - 8, m +2, m + 4 & m + 8 are all prime numbers.

Questions: 

1) Is this sequence finite or infinite?
2)Can you find the next entry of the Table?

_____________
I can not resist introduce the following funny question: What kind of odd m numbers are such that m+2^n are composite for all n=>1?

 


Solution:

Felice Russo wrote (28/1/02)

Lets suppose that n=3. In this case we have 2*n pairs with gap: 4, 8 and 16. So in general we have 2*n pairs with gaps 4, 8, 16..2*2^n.

According to the Wolf's conjecture [1], the probability to find a m value such that m+2^j and m-2^j for j=1n are all primes is given by:

 

 

where A is constant.

So only for N that tend to infinite that probability goes to zero. This should prove that the sequence A066081 is infinite.

______________
[1] M. Wolf, Some conjectures  on the gaps between consecutive primes , preprint at  www.ift.uni.wroc.pl./~mwolf/.

***

Jim Fougeron found (7/2/2002) one solution and candidate for the next entry in the table (n=7):

"for n=7 one m is m=93487500801880185. I used some CRT methods to find this, so it is highly probable that there are smaller solutions to this puzzle".

This is the method used by him:

"it is basically a modular sieve. The modular sieve which I was working with was mod 23# (223092870). This method works by finding your sets of your "pattern" numbers (the pattern was +-2 +-4 +-8 ...). These finds do not have to be prime, they simply have to have no factors smaller than your primorial number. I found 1280 candidates from 3108105 to 1999622625 which had no factor smaller than 41 for the "set" of numbers we are interested in. A property of a primorial, is that if n#+b is divisible by a number less than n, then all multiples of k*n#+b will also be divisible by that number. So (101#+500)%5==0 and (2*101#+500)%5==0 and (k*101#+500)%5==0. If there is no prime smaller than n which divides the n#+b, then there never will be, and these numbers "can" be prime. A prime example of this is k*n#+1 and k*n#-1. These will never have factors smaller than n. By finding "sets" of numbers which have no factors where are smaller than our primorials n value, we have found "perfect" modular ranges for our sieve. Since 3108105 is one of these perfect numbers, we can quickly create a sieve which simultaneously sieves k*23#+(3108105+-b) where b is 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128. There already is a sieve which does this, but for this search, I modified the code, and sped it up a HUGE amount. I trial factored k's in the range of 1 to 500000000 for each of the perfect numbers. These were only trial factored to prime < 20000. Each range took about 5.5 minutes to factor on a Athlon 750. There was only an average of 83 elements per range of 500000000 which survided this trial factoring. I prp checked each of the 14 possibles for each of the remaining candidates. All I was looking for was that magic pair of k's and b's which all 14 were prp. After 595 ranges, I found one. I do have all of the data of "prp's found per candidate".

Total counts (0's is not right, but should be around 4 to 10)

0 0's
89 1's
488 2's
1702 3's
3942 4's
7198 5's
8634 6's
8678 7's
6693 8's
3886 9's
1636 10's
504 11's
112 12's
8 13's
1 14's

Note the VERY symmetrical pattern of primes found per k*23#+b set. I have graphed these data points into Excel, and they make a VERY close approximation to a bell curve. Sieved to 20000, number of this size give you a prime about every 2.15 candidate numbers (actual observed count looking at finished data). I had expected to have to run (2.15)^14 candidates to find a match. That works out to about 42,000. This find was made after only a little more than 25,000 candidate set's were checked.

This modular method is a VERY good way to find k-tuples when k gets to be rather large, if no candidates are found which are "trivial" small (100000000000 is trivial small in my mind)"

***

J.C. Rosa wrote (8/2/02):

About puzzle 167 we can notice that for n=7 , we have necessarily :

m=5 mod 10
m=3 mod 6
m=0 mod 7
m=0 mod 11
m=0 mod 13

thus m is of the following form: m=30030*k+15015

***

Regarding the funny question, I have rescued from my files an old email from Chris Nash (21/08/00) from the times I asked him for the issue "Sierpinski-like" numbers x in 2^n +x.

"...If k is a *provable* Sierpinski number - in other words, for every n, we always know at least one factor of k.2^n+1 - then k can be transformed into a "Sierpinski-like" form 2^n+x for some value of x, and the factors of k.2^n+1 appear in the same places in 2^n+x. 

Sierpinski numbers occur in families. For each family of Sierpinski numbers there is a corresponding "2^n+x" family. But "small k" and "small x" do not go together.

(Perhaps most interesting). k=78557 is the smallest *provable* Sierpinski number. There are many smaller possible ones. So it is likely that there is a small Sierpinski-like number 2^n+x. But there may be unprovable smaller ones!

It would be interesting to see if anyone discovers something - since work on 2^n+x may help in work on k.2^n+1. Strangely too, the Mersenne numbers are also included in this little mix!..."

See http://www.glasgowg43.freeserve.co.uk/nashdef.htm 

***

Pavlos Ask, also knows that there are a relationship between the funny question and the Sierpinski numbers. He wrote (31/1/02):

"...Regarding your question what kind of numbers m with m odd such that m+2^n is composite for every n greater than 1: The construction of such an m can be made just like the Sierpinski numbers k*2^n+1. I found an arithmetic progression that produces m's such that m+2^n is always composite... m+2^n is composite for every n>1 if m is equal to 3555593mod11184810.If you take the integers mod24 then there will always be primes (in the set{2,3,5,7,13,17,241}) that divide m+2^n... (but) I didn't say that ANY Sierpinski number has this property. I said that the method we use to find the m's such that m+2^n is composite, is the same method we use to find Sierpinski numbers"

***

Phil Carmody wrote( 12/2/02):

"Minimal 7: 93487500801880185

It took 10 minutes on a Duron 900 using my 'gensv' program to find, and 10 more minutes to prove minimality (i.e. complete the block).

8 is _hard_ in comparison, I'm not expecting any results, but I shall run gensv for a day looking for an 8."

Gensv is the code I used to find the Euler Trinomial results in the Ludovicus conjecture on primepuzzles. It's also the code I used to find the minimal (and only known) Length-17 Arithmetic Progression starting at the number 17, and also my record Cunningham Chains (of which only length 15 has been announced ;-) ). Paul Jobling has also used it for several tasks (results not yet announced). It's a 'generic sieve', it uses a bit of CRT, and then several different bit-blasting techniques to sieve a contiguous block of numbers for patterns in residues. In order to run it, you simply need to generate a file containing the included or excluded residues for each prime. No particular problem is hard-coded into it, which is why it's so 'generic'."

***

Phil Carmody found (14/2/2002) the minimal solution for n=8, a superb work: 64606701602327559675 (20 digits) "...It took about 24 hours using GenSv on an Alpha 21164/533MHz..."

On my request Carmody also confirmed the minimality of the Reble's solution for n=6.

***

 

 

 



Records   |  Conjectures  |  Problems  |  Puzzles