Let \( S_p := \{np+1 | n \in \mathbb{N_0} \} = \{1, p+1, 2p+1, \dots \} \)

An element \( s_p \in S_p \) is called \(s_p\) prime, if and only if it's only divisors in S_p are \(1\) and \(s_p\) .

In Apostol's book "An Introduction to Number Theory" I found an exercises, in which one had to show that every number in \(S_4\) is either an \(s_4\)-prime or a product of \(s_4\)-primes.

A number \(p\) that suffices this property be now called \(p\)-complete. Respectively such a set \(S_p\ will be called complete.

Now one can ask: Which \(p \in \mathbb{N}\) suffice this property?

Well, let \( x,y \in S_P \), then there \( \exists \) unique \( m,n \in \mathbb{N} \) with \( k(np+1) = mp+1 \) for a yet unspecified \( k \in \mathbb{N} \)

\(k\) itself has unique representation: \(k = p*s+t\) with \( s \in \mathbb{N} \) and \(0 \le t \le p-1 \)

Thus one gets the equation:

\((sp+t)(np+1) = mp+1 \Leftrightarrow spnp +sp+np+t = mp +1 \Leftrightarrow p(nsp +sp+np-m) + t = 1 \) and can immediately confirm: \(S_p\) is complete for any \( p \in \mathbb{N} \)

Now I am interested in all sets \(S_p\), in which all numbers have a unique prime factorization. I would call such a set \(S_p\) perfect. However which sets \(S_p\)are perfect?

How do I tackle this problem? What is a good approach? Any constructive help, recommendation of reading material, comment or answer is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestWhat have you tried?

Is \( S_2 \) complete? Why, or why not?

Is \( S_3 \) complete? Why, or why not?

Is \( S_4 \) complete? Why, or why not?

Is \( S_5 \) complete? Why, or why not?

The areas that this involves is Modular Arithmetic and related concepts.

Log in to reply

I also got a result now: \(S_p \) is only perfect for p = 1 or p = 2

The proof of that was also not too difficult. Maybe this can be turned into a nice problem for brilliant..

Log in to reply

That's great! It's not too hard, once you figure out the slight trick involved. Looking at small cases can help, which is why I asked.

I look forward to seeing the question that you pose. It could be made really interesting :)

Log in to reply

You should clarify the definition of " \( s_p \) prime". I believe what you mean is that "the only divisors of \( s_p \) that are in \( S_p \) are 1 and \( s _ p \)".

For example, \( 9 \in S_ 4 \), and the only divisors are not 1 and 9 (since it has a divisor of 3).

Log in to reply

Yeah, that edit was necessary.

Log in to reply