Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Finite sets of primes

Expand Messages
  • Carl Devore
    ... Gauss proved that it could be constructed.
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, xed wrote:
      > Geometric: Gauss proved that a regular 17-gon cannot be constructed solely
      > using compass and straightedge

      Gauss proved that it could be constructed.
    • Paul Leyland
      ... Not only is there not a proof, heuristic arguments suggest that there should be an infinite number of them. Paul
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > Up to 1.25*10^15 there are only two Wieferich primes: 1093
        > and 3511. Prime p
        > is a Wieferich prime if 2^(p-1) = 1 (mod p^2).
        >
        > But there isn't a prove that there are finitely many Wieferich primes.

        Not only is there not a proof, heuristic arguments suggest that there should be an infinite number of them.


        Paul
      • Chris Caldwell
        ... An n-gon is constructible (with usual rules) if and only if it is a product of a power of two and distinct Fermat primes. So 17 gets us back to the
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          At 11:26 AM 10/1/2003 -0400, Carl Devore wrote:

          >On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, xed wrote:
          >> Geometric: Gauss proved that a regular 17-gon cannot be constructed solely
          >> using compass and straightedge
          >
          >Gauss proved that it could be constructed.

          At 11:26 AM 10/1/2003 -0400, you wrote:
          >On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, xed wrote:
          >> Geometric: Gauss proved that a regular 17-gon cannot be constructed solely
          >> using compass and straightedge
          >
          >Gauss proved that it could be constructed.

          An n-gon is constructible (with usual rules) if and only if it is a product of a power of two and
          distinct Fermat primes. So 17 gets us back to the Fermats which might be finite... but...

          Chris

          (And indeed I left out 2 with x^n-1. The idea is to take any polynomial that factors,
          it will be prime only if at all but one of the factors is a unit (2 make x-1 a unit). But
          that does give an infinite number of such trivial examples.)
        • Andy Swallow
          ... May be within number theory, but are still somewhat artificial examples. It s all just choosing a particular upper bound, and taking all primes less than
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > Even within number theory, we can easily define an ubounded number of sets
            > of finite groups of primes. For example: the number of primes < a hailstone
            > number run for a given seed. Or the number of primes less than each perfect
            > number as we successively march upward. Or the number of primes less than
            > the multiple-valued logs of any given imaginary number. Und so weiter.

            May be within number theory, but are still somewhat artificial examples.
            It's all just choosing a particular upper bound, and taking all primes
            less than it. That's nothing particularly special, no matter where the
            upper bound comes from.

            But if looking at finite sets, it does no harm to consider all integers,
            not just primes. And the class number problem provides a good example
            for the original question posed...

            Let D<0 be the discriminant of an imaginary quadratic field K, the
            simplest kind of algebraic number field other than the rationals. It has
            been proved that there are only finitely many D for which the class
            number of K is 1, but it is not known exactly what all these
            discriminants are. At least not as far as I know. In any case, this is
            certainly a highly non-trivial answer to the original question, albeit
            with the conditions relaxed slightly. And it remains within number
            theory too...

            Andy

            PS
            The values of D which give class number 1 are: -1,-2,-3,-7,-11,-19,
            -43,-67 and -163. These values were conjectured by Gauss to be the only
            possibilities. It was 1934 before Heilbronn & Linfoot proved that there
            were only finitely many such D. Numerical evidence suggests fairly
            strongly that the list above is complete. Good old Gauss...
          • Andy Swallow
            ... But of course, pardon me, I was being stupid. Apart from -1, all the numbers in that little list are prime, so it s an ideal answer to the original
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              > But if looking at finite sets, it does no harm to consider all integers,
              > not just primes. And the class number problem provides a good example
              > for the original question posed...
              > The values of D which give class number 1 are: -1,-2,-3,-7,-11,-19,
              > -43,-67 and -163. etc.

              But of course, pardon me, I was being stupid. Apart from -1, all the
              numbers in that little list are prime, so it's an ideal answer to the
              original question.

              Andy

              (and I don't want anybody trying to say that 1 is prime!)
            • mikeoakes2@aol.com
              In a message dated 03/10/03 15:05:25 GMT Daylight Time, ... You must have an old copy of Hardy & Wright :-) Mine (5th edn.) goes on to say (p.217):- Stark
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 03/10/03 15:05:25 GMT Daylight Time,
                umistphd2003@... writes:


                > The values of D which give class number 1 are: -1,-2,-3,-7,-11,-19,
                > -43,-67 and -163. These values were conjectured by Gauss to be the only
                > possibilities. It was 1934 before Heilbronn & Linfoot proved that there
                > were only finitely many such D. Numerical evidence suggests fairly
                > strongly that the list above is complete. Good old Gauss...
                >

                You must have an old copy of Hardy & Wright :-)
                Mine (5th edn.) goes on to say (p.217):-
                "Stark (1967) proved that this extra field does not exist."

                In other words, those are indeed the /only/ simple imaginary quadratic
                fields.
                I second your salute to the astounding Gauss!

                Mike


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Andy Swallow
                ... Worryingly, I was working from Cohn s advanced number theory, published in 61. That ll teach me to always trust Hardy & Wright more...! Andy
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  > You must have an old copy of Hardy & Wright :-)
                  > Mine (5th edn.) goes on to say (p.217):-
                  > "Stark (1967) proved that this extra field does not exist."

                  Worryingly, I was working from Cohn's advanced number theory, published
                  in '61. That'll teach me to always trust Hardy & Wright more...!

                  Andy
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.