My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math Events

Math Events Math Events, Competitions, Meetups - Local, Regional, State, National, International


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
February 6th, 2014, 08:31 PM   #21
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 932

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: Pre-Q&A

Quote:
Originally Posted by agentredlum
I haven't looked for the other reference he gives , Gross and Filaseta.
The problem is solved completely in Cole, Dunn, & Filaseta 2015 (?), but it hasn't yet been written. The authors tell me the paper should be ready in May, so if we're lucky we'll see it on the arXiv sometime in June. Gross & Filaseta solve a related problem with f(10) prime.
CRGreathouse is offline  
 
February 7th, 2014, 12:02 AM   #22
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Pre-Q&A

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
Sorry to (slightly) let you down.
That's not a problem. I wasn't really looking for coefficients in {0, ..., 9}. Positive coefficients would be enough for me.
mathbalarka is offline  
February 7th, 2014, 07:57 AM   #23
Math Team
 
agentredlum's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,260
Thanks: 198

Re: Pre-Q&A

I have made only a slight progress.



Is factorable with integer coefficients of the factors for every integer n (n = 0 is obviously factorable) , for our task at hand we require n > 0

This shows that for the satisfaction of our current problem , poly's of this form can be abandoned since



When x = 2 and for any positive integer n. The other factor is always > 1 uder the same conditions.

Note that



Is always factorable , with the coefficients of the factor pol's in Z[x]. This may be usefull elsewhere so put it in your notebook [color=#00FF00]Mr. TNT ![/color]

agentredlum is offline  
February 7th, 2014, 08:09 AM   #24
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Pre-Q&A

If you ask, I'd say none of the factors of f(x) are 'small'. If you want to know, my idea is to make a first few coefficients 1 and then continue by making a sign change at h(x) so that f(x) has all of the coefficients positive. For example : (x^2 - 3x + 3)(x^4 + 4x^3 + 10x^2 + 19x + 1) = x^6 + x^5 + x^4 + x^3 - 26x^2 + 54x + 3. I'll see if I can do something through this process.
mathbalarka is offline  
February 7th, 2014, 08:57 AM   #25
Math Team
 
agentredlum's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,260
Thanks: 198

Re: Pre-Q&A

I also used a similar approach starting with ,



One difficulty is we need non-zero 'a' so that the 2^3 is neutralized but that forces a*a all the way to the right.



Which in turn forces a*a*a in the remaining slot



So now you know the secret of my derivation in my previous post.

2 is too small , try a bigger prime then it may work. This particular approach using three terms for each factor is doomed IMHO because it initiates a 'reverse telescoping' process where the 'telescope' expands instead of collapsing. We may need at least one factor with many terms and large coefficients.

agentredlum is offline  
February 7th, 2014, 09:02 AM   #26
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Pre-Q&A

Quote:
Originally Posted by agentredlum
We may need at least one factor with many terms and large coefficients.
Change the 'may' to 'will'.
mathbalarka is offline  
February 7th, 2014, 09:18 AM   #27
Math Team
 
agentredlum's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,260
Thanks: 198

Re: Pre-Q&A

I noticed you are using



How can you be sure it will not initiate the same probems as my example , no mater how many terms the other factor has?

Well , don't let me stop you , you are very close all you need to do is find the trick that eliminates -26 without turning any other coefficient negative , then check if f(2) = prime.

I'm starting to suspect we may need many poly's with many terms so we can gain more freedom.

agentredlum is offline  
February 7th, 2014, 09:26 AM   #28
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Pre-Q&A

Quote:
Originally Posted by agentredlum
How can you be sure it will not initiate the same probems as my example , no mater how many terms the other factor has?
My guess is that any polynomial with no positive root has a nonnegative coefficient polynomial multiple. I don't know how to (dis)prove that though, but I imagine it is not hard. But the actual problem here is to fins an explicit example, so it would not help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by agentredlum
I'm starting to suspect we may need many poly's with many terms so we can gain more freedom.
Yes, and we need a negative coefficient too.
mathbalarka is offline  
February 7th, 2014, 11:13 AM   #29
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Pre-Q&A

I DID IT!!! Here's a brief description of what I tried:

Idea : I optimized the coefficients the first few coefficients of f(x) by setting them all to 1. This was the safest thing for me to do, as I have noted that either g or h must be very large. I then solved the linear system of equations one by one by subbing each coefficients of g to another. **I used no CAS help at this point**

Precisely, the steps are :

1. I assumed g(x) = x^2 - 3x + 3 is the desired polynomial to choose. Note g(2) = 1.

2. (x^2 - 3x + 3)(x + 4) = x^3 + x^2 - 9x + 12

3. (x^2 - 3x + 3)(x^2 + 4x + 10) = x^4 + x^3 + x^2 - 18x + 30

4. (x^2 - 3x + 3)(x^3 + 4x^2 + 10x + 19) = x^5 + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 - 27x + 57

5. (x^2 - 3x + 3)(x^4 + 4x^3 + 10x^2 + 19x + 27) = x^6 + x^5 + x^4 + x^3 - 24x + 81

6. (x^2 - 3x + 3)(x^5 + 4x^4 + 10x^3 + 19x^2 + 27x + 24) = x^7 + x^6 + x^5 + x^4 + 9x + 72 [a polynomial in N[x]!]

We are not done yet. We need f(2) to be prime, whereas it is now 330. This is simple to bypass, by adding a 1 to the factor

(x^2 - 3x + 3)(x^5 + 4x^4 + 10x^3 + 19x^2 + 27x + 25) = x^7 + x^6 + x^5 + x^4 + x^2 + 6x + 75

So ends the first part of CRG's problem. The race is now on to push the coefficients to {0, ..., 10}.
mathbalarka is offline  
February 7th, 2014, 11:40 AM   #30
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 932

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: Pre-Q&A

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathbalarka
If you ask, I'd say none of the factors of f(x) are 'small'.
I suspect one of the factors can be a quadratic and only one of the coefficients needs to be 10, but I haven't applied any silicon to the problem.

Edit: I see that the first part of my suspicion turns out to be correct!
CRGreathouse is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math Events

Tags
preqanda



Thread Tools
Display Modes






Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.