Sign up ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The Hermite-grand-conjecture implies that f(k)=(2^(2^5^11^(7k+1))+1)/3 is prime for all natural numbers $k$.

Is there any explicit formula that has so far been proven to produce primes for all natural numbers?

If not, is there under some reasonable restriction of closed-form formula a possible non-constructive proof that there exist (or does not exist under even more restrictive conditions) a finite formula that produces primes for all natural integers?

If not, is there any formula that has been proven to output primes with a frequency approaching 1 for input naturals k approaching infinity?

share|cite|improve this question

closed as not a real question by Felipe Voloch, Will Jagy, Franz Lemmermeyer, Daniel Litt, Andrés Caicedo Oct 9 '11 at 15:00

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Could you elaborate on the first line this seems surprising to me. For the rest yes prime generating functions exist, but they tend to be complex. Also, one can show that certain things cannot work, for example a polynomial. See –  quid Oct 8 '11 at 17:25
The first line of your posting is nonsense in more than one way. –  Franz Lemmermeyer Oct 8 '11 at 17:43
Please, be more specific. Define "explicit", and define "formula". For example, my formula f(x)=3 returns a prime for all natural numbers x. –  Per Alexandersson Oct 8 '11 at 21:37

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

It depends a bit on what you accept as "explicit". E.g., there is a positive real number $A$ such that the integer part of $A^{3^n}$ is prime for all positive integers $n$. See Wikipedia on Mills' constant.

share|cite|improve this answer

f(3) = 171. The conjecture is false.

edit: This answer was for the original version, which said the "New Mersenne Conjecture" and gave the formula $f(k)=\frac{2^{2^k+1}+1}{3}$. At least that version gives integer results; the new one isn't an integer for any k.

share|cite|improve this answer
To avoid a misconcpention the New Nersenne Conjecture is not the statement, see… (So the 'implies' not the 'conjecture' should be the problem.) –  quid Oct 8 '11 at 17:43
Actually, the New Mersenne Conjecture is not the New Mersenne Conjecture ( –  Franz Lemmermeyer Oct 8 '11 at 17:45
@Franz: In the questioners defence. There is not claim this was the NM conjecture ;) –  quid Oct 8 '11 at 17:48

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.