1
$\begingroup$

Let $p_1$ through $p_6$ be consecutive primes in ascending order, and consider the simultaneous equation $$p_1x+p_2y=p_3\\p_4x+p_5y=p_6$$

Motivating Question: For what $p_1$ does the system provide integer solutions $(x,y)$?

Solving the system, we have $$x=\frac{p_3p_5-p_2p_6}{p_1p_5-p_2p_4}\quad\text{and}\quad y=\frac{p_3-p_1x}{p_2}=\frac{p_1p_6-p_3p_4}{p_1p_5-p_2p_4}$$ so it is equivalent to asking when $p_1p_5-p_2p_4$ divides $p_3p_5-p_2p_6$.

I asked this on MSE a few months ago and user @RGS has created a script for the first $100,000$ primes.

I give the results here.

for p1 = 2 we have (x,y) = (16.0,-9.0) for p1 = 5 we have (x,y) = (-9.0,8.0) for p1 = 19 we have (x,y) = (-13.0,12.0) for p1 = 59 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 151 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 487 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 587 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 739 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 881 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 1097 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 1453 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 1697 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 2213 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 2239 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 2243 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 3037 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 3217 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 4019 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 4073 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 4093 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 4241 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 5477 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 6199 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 6793 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 7669 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 7877 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 8291 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 8819 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 9041 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 9059 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 9181 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 9461 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 9811 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 11159 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 11467 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 11621 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 12821 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 13877 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 15149 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 16657 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 19421 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 19457 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 19571 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 20021 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 20101 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 21011 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 22039 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 22271 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 23059 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 23761 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 24071 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 25583 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 25997 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 29567 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 30643 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 31153 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 31177 we have (x,y) = (15590.0,-15587.0) for p1 = 31477 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 32377 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 32503 we have (x,y) = (-6.0,7.0) for p1 = 33149 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 33767 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 40459 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 40823 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 40927 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 41143 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 41467 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 42179 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 42181 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 42299 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 43781 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 44501 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 44809 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 46229 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 47501 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 47699 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 48761 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 50261 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 51131 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 51157 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 52289 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 54091 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 55331 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 58367 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 58537 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 58733 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 60089 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 60257 we have (x,y) = (-6.0,7.0) for p1 = 60733 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 62927 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 63487 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 63521 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 66643 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 67477 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 69653 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 70583 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 70783 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 71861 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 71881 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 71987 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 72089 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 72817 we have (x,y) = (-6.0,7.0) for p1 = 73471 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 75209 we have (x,y) = (-3.0,4.0) for p1 = 76079 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 77587 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 79811 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 80681 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 81019 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 81671 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 83071 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 83089 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 85601 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 87557 we have (x,y) = (-12.0,13.0) for p1 = 91159 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 91423 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 92107 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 93047 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 93937 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 94477 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 95957 we have (x,y) = (-6.0,7.0) for p1 = 96353 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 96553 we have (x,y) = (-6.0,7.0) for p1 = 97511 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 97577 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 100391 we have (x,y) = (-5.0,6.0) for p1 = 101267 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) for p1 = 101873 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 102451 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 103651 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 103811 we have (x,y) = (-12.0,13.0) for p1 = 103991 we have (x,y) = (-2.0,3.0) for p1 = 104009 we have (x,y) = (-1.0,2.0) total count is 133

Some interesting things can be observed.

Firstly, $\text{sgn}(x)\neq\text{sgn}(y)$. We expect this since the negative value compensates for the large positive value to give a smaller positive value (namely $p_3$ and $p_6$).

Next, we see that apart from five exceptions $p_1=2,5,19,59,31177$, $y$ is always greater than $-x$ by $1$. Also, the same set of values of $(x,y)$ keep on reappearing.

Question 1: Is there an explanation for the regularity with which $$x+y=1\quad?$$

If we substitute this into the simultaneous equation, we get that $$\frac{p_1-p_2}{p_2-p_3}=\frac{p_4-p_5}{p_5-p_6}$$ This might be related to the twin prime conjecture.

Finally, the proportion of primes that satisfy the system is $133/10000=1.33\%$. If we consider the first $90,000, 80,000$ or $70,000$ primes we still see that the proportion hovers around $1.3\%$.

Question 2: What is the value of $$\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{\pi'(x)}{\pi(x)}$$ where $\pi'(x)$ is the number of primes $p_1\le x$ that satisfy the simultaneous equation?

Note that in a second answer in MSE, it was shown that proving Dickson's Conjecture would prove the infinitude of these integer solutions.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Note that $p_1p_5-p_2p_4$ divides $p_3p_5-p_2p_6$ if and only if it divides $p_1p_6-p_3p_4$, since $$p_1(p_3p_5-p_2p_6)-p_2(p_1p_6-p_3p_4)=p_3(p_1p_5-p_2p_4).$$ $\endgroup$ – Greg Martin Jun 6 '18 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ @GregMartin Well spotted. Edited. $\endgroup$ – TheSimpliFire Jun 6 '18 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ Is there something similar in the case of system $p_1x+p_2y+p_3z=p_4$, $p_5x+p_6y+p_7z=p_8$, $p_9x+p_{10}y+p_{11}z=p_{12}$? (of course, we will still have $x+y+z=1$ with only finitely many exceptions, but maybe something interesting beside that?..) $\endgroup$ – Asymptotiac K Jun 6 '18 at 22:20
  • $\begingroup$ @AsymptotiacK Unfortunately no, I haven't been able to find any for the first hundred or so. What might be interesting is that for both the $2\times2$ ans $3\times3$ systems of equations, even the non-integer solutions are quite 'simple' fractions like $5/4$ or $7/11$. $\endgroup$ – TheSimpliFire Jun 7 '18 at 7:53
1
$\begingroup$

This is not a good forum for this question. Since it touches upon prime gaps, I will provide a perspective to help explain.

Since the problem deals with consecutive primes in order, with $p_1$ being the smallest prime, it aids to subtract off $p_1$. Doing this for the first equation and representing differences with $d$s, we can rewrite the first equation as $$p_1(x-1) + (p_1 + d_1)y = d_2.$$

Here $d_1$ and $d_2$ are expected to be small compared to $p_1$, and for sufficiently large primes, are guaranteed to be smaller than the $3/5$ power of $p_1$. The $d_j$ are often less than $\log p_1$ and that is the intuition to hold for what follows.

Since the differences are small, $x-1$ and $y$ have to be about the same in absolute value to get a solution, especially if both $x$ and $y$ are much smaller than $p_1$. This should motivate why the solutions satisfy $x+y =1$. Note that the relation $yd_1 = d_2$ then needs to be observed, and as $d_1$ is smaller than $d_2$, $y \gt 1$.

Now subtract the second equation from the first. $$d_4x + d_5y = d_6$$. Again the differences are small numbers, and if we are looking also for integral solutions satisfying $x+y=1$, then $d_6 - d_5$ must be a multiple of $d_4 - d_5$, which relates to the divisibility conditions discussed in comments. Again the $d$s are small and the condition essentially is one on (a part of) a sextuple of consecutive primes. There may be analytic methods to predict the frequency of these tuples. Although it is not guaranteed, observing their frequency among the first million examples is a good clue as to the expected distribution over all examples.

Again, this is not a good forum for this question.

Gerhard "Sextuple Makes Me Feel Young" Paseman, 2018.06.06.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think, it is possible to deduce that $x+y=1$ for all but finitely many examples from the (hypothetical) estimate $p_{n+1}-p_n=o(p_n^{1/2})$, because in this case we have $|y|\approx 1+\frac{d_5-d_2}{d_4-d_1}$, which cannot be very large, while $|y|$ has to be large if $x+y\neq 1$ $\endgroup$ – Asymptotiac K Jun 6 '18 at 22:14
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with your heuristic argument. Where do you think this question is best suited? $\endgroup$ – TheSimpliFire Jul 7 '18 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ I suggest math.stackexchange, but read their How To Ask pages first. Gerhard "Post May Need Some Tweaks" Paseman, 2018.07.07. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Jul 7 '18 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ I have already asked that question there a few months ago: see here $\endgroup$ – TheSimpliFire Jul 7 '18 at 18:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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