I'm not sure if there will be a formula for the lowest possible terms for a given \(n.\) As you point out \(8,9,10\) are the lowest for \(n = 3.\) For \(n = 2\) it would be \(8,9,\) (which matches the sequence I mentioned above). For \(n = 4\) it would be \(24,25,26,27\) and for \(n = 5\) it would be \(24,25,26,27,28.\) For \(n = 6\) it would be \(90,91,92,93,94,95\) and for \(n = 7\) it would be \(90,91,92,93,94,95,96.\)

Since prime gaps for primes in excess os \(2\) are multiples of \(2\) we will find that the lowest sequences for \(n = 2k\) and \(n = 2k + 1\) will have the same lowest term. Beyond that observation, I think it would be difficult to establish any general formula since the number of consecutive composites depends on the sizes of the prime gaps, (i.e., difference between successive primes), which don't follow any identifiable pattern.

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:

TopNewestFor \(n \ge 1\) consider the \(n\)-term sequence \((n + 1)! + 2, (n + 1)! + 3, (n + 1)! + 4, ..... , (n + 1)! + (n + 1).\)

Then the \(k\)th term is divisible by \(k + 1\) for \(1 \le k \le n,\) and thus all \(n\) terms are composite.

Log in to reply

Are these terms the lowest possible numbers as well? I guess no, so can we generalize them for lowest possible terms?

Log in to reply

I'm not sure if there will be a formula for the lowest possible terms for a given \(n.\) As you point out \(8,9,10\) are the lowest for \(n = 3.\) For \(n = 2\) it would be \(8,9,\) (which matches the sequence I mentioned above). For \(n = 4\) it would be \(24,25,26,27\) and for \(n = 5\) it would be \(24,25,26,27,28.\) For \(n = 6\) it would be \(90,91,92,93,94,95\) and for \(n = 7\) it would be \(90,91,92,93,94,95,96.\)

Since prime gaps for primes in excess os \(2\) are multiples of \(2\) we will find that the lowest sequences for \(n = 2k\) and \(n = 2k + 1\) will have the same lowest term. Beyond that observation, I think it would be difficult to establish any general formula since the number of consecutive composites depends on the sizes of the prime gaps, (i.e., difference between successive primes), which don't follow any identifiable pattern.

Log in to reply

As if I have to find three consecutive positive composite numbers, the lowest are 8,9 and 10.

Log in to reply

@Brian Charlesworth Sir, please help again!

Log in to reply