We use cookies to personalise content and advertisements and to analyse access to our website. Furthermore, our partners for online advertising receive pseudonymised information about your use of our website. cookie policy and privacy policy.

+0

# The previous solution does'nt help .

+1
242
8

Please give me a detailed solution for the question

Let n > 18 be a positive integer such that n-1 and n+1 both are prime .

Prove that n has at least 8 different positive factors .

Nov 10, 2018

### 8+0 Answers

#1
0

https://web2.0calc.com/questions/help-me_137

Nov 10, 2018
#2
0

60 =22 x 3 x 5 =3 "Prime Factors"
Total divisors =The exponent of each "Prime Factor" + 1, all multiplied together: (2+1) x (1+1)x(1+1) =12 divisors:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 20 | 30 | 60 (12 divisors), or factors.
60 - 1 =59 Prime number
60+1 =61 Prime number.

Nov 10, 2018
#3
0

deleted

Guest Nov 10, 2018
edited by Guest  Nov 10, 2018
#4
0

35802 =2 x 34 x 13 x 17 =4 "Prime Factors"
Total divisors =The exponent of each "Prime Factor" + 1, all multiplied together: (1+1) x (4+1)x(1+1)x(1+1) =40 divisors:
1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 18 | 26 | 27 | 34 | 39 | 51 | 54 | 78 | 81 | 102 | 117 | 153 | 162 | 221 | 234 | 306 | 351 | 442 | 459 | 663 | 702 | 918 | 1053 | 1326 | 1377 | 1989 | 2106 | 2754 | 3978 | 5967 | 11934 | 17901 | 35802 (40 divisors), or factors
35802 - 1 =35801 Prime number
35802+1 =35803 Prime number.

Guest Nov 10, 2018
#5
0

I would also like to see this proof. Nov 10, 2018
edited by Melody  Nov 10, 2018
#6
+1

This question applies only to those composite numbers that are between 2 "Twin Primes" that are >18. Here is a list of twin primes >18 and <1,000.    (29, 31) | (41, 43) | (59, 61) | (71, 73) | (101, 103) | (107, 109) | (137, 139) | (149, 151) | (179, 181) | (191, 193) | (197, 199) | (227, 229) | (239, 241) | (269, 271) | (281, 283) | (311, 313) | (347, 349) | (419, 421) | (431, 433) | (461, 463) | (521, 523) | (569, 571) | (599, 601) | (617, 619) | (641, 643) | (659, 661) | (809, 811) | (821, 823) | (827, 829) | (857, 859) | (881, 883) ...
The definition of a prime number is that it has ONLY 2 prime divisors, i.e., itself and 1. Since two prime divisors will only have 2 exponents, which would only give:(1+1) x (1+1)=4 divisors. A composite number between 2 twin primes must, by definition,  necessarily have at least (1+1) extra divisor for a total of: (1+1) x (1+1) x (1+1) =8 divisors as " a minimum" to distinguish it from a prime number which MUST have only 4 divisors. And that is the best that I can give you as a "proof".

Nov 11, 2018
edited by Guest  Nov 11, 2018
#7
0

This is incorrect, all prime numbers have exactly 2 divisors, not 4 (the prime number and 1), and not all composite numbers have 8 divisors.

Guest Nov 11, 2018
#8
0

Thanks guest. 1 is not a prime number but that is not central to your arguement.

I am afraid your second paragraph makes no sense to me at all.

Thanks for you input though :)

Melody  Nov 12, 2018