\[\nexists~a,b\in\Bbb Z^+~(a\neq b)~\mid~a+x\in\Bbb P\iff b+x\in\Bbb P~\forall~x\in\Bbb Z_{\geq 0}\]

Prove the statement above.

**Details and Assumptions :**

- \(\Bbb P\) denotes the set of all prime numbers.
- \(\Bbb Z^+\) denotes the set of all positive integers.
- \(\Bbb Z_{\geq 0}=\Bbb Z^+\cup \{0\}\) denotes the set of all non-negative integers.

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

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:

TopNewestSeems simple if you use contradiction.

Suppose there does exist such an \( a \) and \( b \). WLOG, let \( a > b \), and \( a - b = d \). Now let \( p \) be the smallest prime such that \( p > a \).

Then, by induction,we can prove all \( p + nd \) for all natural numbers \( n \).

This implies that in every set of \( d \) consecutive integers, starting from an integer larger than \( p \), we can find at least one prime.

But this is not true for the set \( k(d+1)! + 2, k(d+1)! + 3, ... k(d+1)! + (d+1) \), in which all elements are composite, and the first element is larger than \( p \) by taking some suitable k. Hence, we have a contradiction.

Log in to reply

Yes, that is the intended proof. +1

However, you can cut the proof short by taking \(n=p\) which would result in us getting that \(p+pd=p(1+d)\) is prime. Contradiction.

The result follows.

Log in to reply

Hey seniors and respected professionals, please do comment in this note. I see that nowadays the scope of Brilliant has been limited to just JEE syllabus and Olympiad Mathematics, please try to promote Higher Mathematics too.

Log in to reply

This problem might well fit into the Olympiad math style actually. There's a really elegant proof (by contradiction) of this that uses just elementary mathematical induction.

Log in to reply

Really? Cool then..

Log in to reply