|
||
Title: Primes in base 3 Post by JocK on Aug 14th, 2005, 5:19am In base 3, apart from the second prime, all primes end in 1 or 2: 2, 10, 12, 21, 102, 111, 122, 201, 212, 1002, 1011, 1101, 1112, 1121, ... Can you prove the following: There is a value of N such that when above sequence is truncated after N terms, there are more terms that end in "1" than there are that end in "2". We can try to extend this to any base b: Can you prove that there is a N such that the first N primes when written in arbitrary base b contain more terms ending in "1" than those ending in any other specific symbol? |
||
Title: Re: Primes in base 3 Post by Barukh on Aug 14th, 2005, 7:22am on 08/14/05 at 05:19:38, JocK wrote:
So, actually, what you are asking to prove is that there is a point where primes of the form 3n+1 dominate primes of the form 3n-1? ;) |
||
Title: Re: Primes in base 3 Post by Eigenray on Aug 14th, 2005, 1:34pm Very interesting! In 1853 [link=http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ChebyshevBias.html]Chebyshev[/link] noted that primes seemd to be congruent more often to 2 mod 3 (or to 3 mod 4) than to 1, even though they are asymptotically equally distributed. In fact, for a given base, there is a bias towards quadratic non-residues in general [Michael Rubinstein and Peter Sarnak. "[link=http://www.expmath.org/restricted/3/3.3/rubinstein.ps]Chebyshev’s Bias[/link]", Experimental Mathematics, Vol.3, 1994 (pp. 173-197).] If q is such that (Z/qZ)* is cyclic, let piR(x,q) and piN(x,q) denote the number of primes <=x which are quadratic residues and nonresidues, respectively, mod q, and let Pq = {x : piN(x,q) > piR(x,q) }. Then, assuming GRH and GSH (the hypothesis that the imaginary parts of the roots on the critical line of certain L functions are linearly independent over Q), Rubinstein and Sarnak in 1994 showed that Pq always has logarithmic density strictly between 1/2 and 1, and that it approaches 1/2 as q -> infinity. For q=3,4 the densities are about 0.9990 and 0.9959, respectively. In particular, there are infinitely many such N as in Jock's question. That fact was proved by Littlewood in 1914; the first such N was found by Bays and Hudson in 1978. |
||
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4! Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board |