Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

t(1)=2 t(2)=3 t(3)=t(1)*t(2)+1 t(4)=t(1)*t(2)*t(3)+1 . . . t(n)=t(1)*t(2)*t(3)*...*t(n-1)+1 PROVE or DISPROVE that t(n) will surely be PRIME

Mathematics
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

To see the expert answer you'll need to create a free account at Brainly

This sounds like a very hard problem.
Maybe not....
I dont know..... But I think it will not be surely prime.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

If not, we just need a counterexample.
I doubt it is all primes as well.
remainder is gonna be one
Looks like an Euclid proof of the infinite number of prime numbers.
Euclid never said there was an infinity of primes (didn't believe in infinity)
t(5)=2*3*7*43+1=1807 1807/13=139
Euclid said that you could always construct another one out of a supposedly complete list.
that dosent make sense
There are infinitely many primes, as demonstrated by Euclid around 300 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number
True but he never said anything about infinity (Greeks weren't too keen on that idea)
You deepened into the history. But I spoke about the method.
The method, I agree, is very like the question.....
P_n = p1p2p3....+1
The "infinitely many" part got added later.....
Personally, I like "you can always get another one" better....
"Construct another one"
do you mean induction
No, it is an explicit construction...
You give me a list of primes and say "That's all there are" And I give you another one not in the list...

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question