Another empirical relation i founded was that,
2pn+1=prime number or a number having its factors as prime,where p is a prime number,n is any odd natural number

There cannot be such a function which always gives a prime. Its a well known fact. I think you can find the proof in Titu Andreescu's '104 Number Theory Problems'

I think there isnt.let P-2=x.so P-1=1+x.now,finding the binomial expansion of(1+x)^p and putting it in our expression,it is found that our expression is always divisible by p.

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestAnother empirical relation i founded was that, 2pn+1=prime number or a number having its factors as prime,where p is a prime number,n is any odd natural number

Log in to reply

There cannot be such a function which always gives a prime. Its a well known fact. I think you can find the proof in Titu Andreescu's '104 Number Theory Problems'

Log in to reply

I think there isnt.let P-2=x.so P-1=1+x.now,finding the binomial expansion of(1+x)^p and putting it in our expression,it is found that our expression is always divisible by p.

Log in to reply

That is why i divided \( P-2 \) , or else it is always composite

Log in to reply