3
$\begingroup$

Let $p $ be an odd prime. Assume that we have the following perfect pattern: all the primes below $p$ are successively quadratic residues and quadratic non-residues. What can we say about $p$? Is it possible that only finitely many such $p$ exist?

Edit: Mathematically I mean: denote by $p_n$ the $n$-th smallest prime. Then is it true that there are infinitely many $N$ with the two properties $$1\leq n < N \& \ n \text{ odd } \Rightarrow (\frac{p_n}{p_N})=(\frac{p_1}{p_N})$$ and $$1\leq n < N \& \ n \text{ even } \Rightarrow (\frac{p_n}{p_N})=(\frac{p_2}{p_N}).$$

$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure what you mean with "are successively quadratic residues and quadratic non-residues". Do you mean they alternate being residue and nonresidue? $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Commented Mar 24, 2022 at 0:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You can delete "that do not divide $p$", since the primes below $p$ do not divide $p$. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Mar 24, 2022 at 0:50
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "successively quadratic residues and quadratic non-residues"? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24, 2022 at 5:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ with respect, the way you stated it in words was absolutely unrelated to the mathematically stated problem! $\endgroup$
    – kodlu
    Commented Mar 24, 2022 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ sorry about this! $\endgroup$
    – Dr. Pi
    Commented Mar 24, 2022 at 12:14

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

It is very likely that there are only finitely many primes with this property. Heuristically, the probability of this happening for the $N$th prime is $2^{2-N}$, and $\sum_{N \geq 2} 2^{2-N} =2$, so we expect only a couple primes where this happens.

I can't see how one would ever hope to prove this. However, we can prove there are not many such primes in some large intervals.

If $p$ and $q$ are two such primes with $p<q$, then $\left( \frac{ \ell}{pq}\right)$ is either the constant function $1$ for $\ell<p$ or the constant function $-1$. Thus $\left( \frac{m}{pq} \right)$ is either the constant function $1$ for $m < pq$ or the Möbius function. The second case is a Siegel zero-type phenomenon, but the first case is easier to rule out.

Since most numbers $< p^{\sqrt{e}}$ have only prime factors $<p$, the average of the Legendre symbol $\left( \frac{m}{pq} \right)$ over numbers $< p^{\sqrt{e}}$ is positive and large in the first case - there are more $1$s then $-1$s. By Burgess, this is impossible unless $pq > (p^{\sqrt{e}})^{4-\epsilon}$, or $q> p^{ 4 \sqrt{e}-1 -o(1)}$.

So every perfectl equidistributed prime between $p$ and $ p^{ 4 \sqrt{e}-1 -o(1)}$ must have the opposite sign (of the Legendre symbol applied to 2) from $p$. Since these perfectly equidistributed primes must also have opposite signs from each other, there can be at most one more perfectly equidistributed prime in that range.

This means the number of perfectly equidistributed primes $<n$ is at most $$ \left(\frac{2}{ \log (4 \sqrt{e}-1)} + o(1)\right) \log \log n.$$

So there can be very few such primes in a given range.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ amazing, thank you! $\endgroup$
    – Dr. Pi
    Commented Mar 24, 2022 at 12:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .