Let \(p = 2n + 1\) as most of the primes are odd, with particular natural number \(n\). We now have \(16n^{2} + 16n + 5\) as the number to check. One only needs to choose any multiple of \(5\) as \(n\) while maintaining the primality \(p\). With \(n = 5\), \(p = 11\), which is prime, and \(4p^{2} + 1 = 485\), which isn't a prime.

So, no.

Note: In a glance, I know the statement are false; because if it is true, we won't have a problem in finding the next biggest prime. Which we actually kind of have.

First of all, I wasn't nor intended to say that every prime can be written as \(2n + 1\), with any integer \(n\). As it is obviously wrong. To clarify, I'm using \(2n + 1\) as \(p\) for the sake of one and only one thing, making the problem easier to be solved.

Second, have you read the third sentence in the first paragraph? It says "One only needs to choose any multiple of \(5\) as \(n\) while maintaining the primality of \(p\)."

And third, don't write "firstly" if you're only pointing one thing.

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:

TopNewestLet \(p = 2n + 1\) as most of the primes are odd, with particular natural number \(n\). We now have \(16n^{2} + 16n + 5\) as the number to check. One only needs to choose any multiple of \(5\) as \(n\) while maintaining the primality \(p\). With \(n = 5\), \(p = 11\), which is prime, and \(4p^{2} + 1 = 485\), which isn't a prime.

So, no.

Note: In a glance, I know the statement are false; because if it is true, we won't have a problem in finding the next biggest prime. Which we actually kind of have.

Log in to reply

Firstly your first assumption is wrong Prime number cannot be written as 2n +1 put n=4

You can say 'most' of the prime numbers can be written as \(p = 6n \pm 1\) Except numbers ending with 5 in the above expression

Log in to reply

First of all, I wasn't nor intended to say that every prime can be written as \(2n + 1\), with any integer \(n\). As it is obviously wrong. To clarify, I'm using \(2n + 1\) as \(p\) for the sake of one and only one thing, making the problem easier to be solved.

Second, have you read the third sentence in the first paragraph? It says "

One only needs to choose any multiple of \(5\) as \(n\) while"maintainingthe primality of \(p\).And third, don't write "firstly" if you're only pointing one thing.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

\(f(p) = 4p^{2} + 1\)

\( f(p) = 4p^{2} + 4p +1 - 4p\)

\(= (2p + 1)^{2} - 4p\)

odd - even is not always a prime number

therefore statement is false

Log in to reply