Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Composites, and neat relation
Replies: 18   Last Post: Sep 14, 2004 3:38 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 JAMES HARRIS Posts: 9,787 Registered: 12/4/04
Composites, and neat relation
Posted: Sep 12, 2004 2:43 PM

So someone pointed out that there's the trivial relation

[x] + [x + 1/2] = [2x] where you're in reals,

[x] + [x + 1/k] = [2x]

also in reals, with k&gt;1, and it turns out you need x&gt;1 as well, which
I was thinking about didn't put down before.

Using that with x = N/2kj, where N, k and j are naturals, and N&gt;=2kj,
you get

[(N+2j)/2kj] = [N/kj] - [N/2kj]

and to test it, I'll use N=13, k=2, j=3, which gives

[19/12] = [13/6] - [13/12]

so that works.

That should say something about what j can be in general given a
composite, but I'd think it'd just repeat what you can find by other
means.

Still I'm mulling it over and don't mind tossing it out early.

After all, if kj is prime, then only j = 1, or j=k, will work,
assuming that j is the one that equals 1.

Is there some way then, given some composite C, to play with

[(N+2j)/2C] = [N/C] - [N/2C]

where N&gt;2C, to determine if j can be other than 1 or C?

If so, then it's a prime test.

James Harris

Date Subject Author
9/12/04 JAMES HARRIS
9/12/04 The Last Danish Pastry
9/12/04 Jim Burns
9/12/04 Tim Smith
9/13/04 David C. Ullrich
9/12/04 Nate Smith
9/12/04 C. BOND
9/12/04 Dik T. Winter
9/12/04 Dik T. Winter
9/12/04 JAMES HARRIS
9/13/04 Paul Murray
9/13/04 JAMES HARRIS
9/13/04 C. BOND
9/13/04 Jim Burns
9/14/04 Nate Smith
9/13/04 Dik T. Winter
9/14/04 Paul Murray
9/13/04 Dik T. Winter
9/13/04 David C. Ullrich