Skip to main content
edited tags
Link
David Roberts
  • 36.8k
  • 13
  • 142
  • 386

Is the question under Given a prime $p$ and by Dirichlet a prime $q = k\cdot p+1$ — minimal of this title trueform — does the number $k = (q-1)/p$ have only prime divisors $<p$?

deleted 351 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
GH from MO
  • 114.8k
  • 8
  • 322
  • 438

Dear finite researchers of the infinite mathematics,

I have a question for you:

Given a prime $p$ and by Dirichlet a prime $q = k\cdot p+1$ - minimal of this form -, does then the number $k = (q-1)/p$ have only prime divisors $< p$?

What What does the finite research literature say for such a dumbthis question and what do you say? If the question is not research level, then I will update the question so that its level matches the community expectations of researchness, which is to say, arbitrary rules, inventend by self-proclaimed priests of mathematics.

Dear finite researchers of the infinite mathematics,

I have a question for you:

Given a prime $p$ and by Dirichlet a prime $q = k\cdot p+1$ - minimal of this form -, does then the number $k = (q-1)/p$ have only prime divisors $< p$?

What does the finite research literature say for such a dumb question and what do you say? If the question is not research level, then I will update the question so that its level matches the community expectations of researchness, which is to say, arbitrary rules, inventend by self-proclaimed priests of mathematics.

Given a prime $p$ and by Dirichlet a prime $q = k\cdot p+1$ - minimal of this form -, does then the number $k = (q-1)/p$ have only prime divisors $< p$? What does the research literature say for this question?

Source Link
mathoverflowUser
  • 3.8k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 45
Loading