A conjecture involving prime numbers and parallelograms

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
28
down vote

favorite
7












As already introduced in this post, given the series of prime numbers greater than $9$, let organize them in four rows, according to their last digit ($1,3,7$ or $9$). The column in which they are displayed is the ten to which they belong, as illustrated in the following scheme.



enter image description here



Within this scheme, and given the tens $N=0,3,6,9ldots$, we can uniquely define a parallelogram by means of the four points corresponding to the four integers $N+1$, $(N+10)+1$, $(N+40)+9$ and $(N+50)+9$, as easily illustrated below.



enter image description here



For instance, the parallelogram corresponding to the ten $N=3$ is defined by the integers $31,41,79$ and $89$, whereas the one corresponding to $N=6$ is defined by $61,71,109, 119$.



My conjecture is:




On the perimeter of each parallelogram there cannot be more than $7$ primes.




In the following picture, I denote with a red cross some of the missing primes, i.e. those integers that occupy one of the $8$ possible positions that the primes can occupy on the parallelograms, but that are not primes.



enter image description here



And here some more (sorry for the bad quality).



enter image description here



(This conjecture is motivated by the fact that, if true, it can perhaps be used to devise a method to determine which point will be missing on the parallelogram $N+1$, knowing which ones are missing on the previous $N$ parallelograms, but this is another problem!).



So far, I tried to use the strategies suggested in this post, but without much success.



I apologize in case this is a trivial question, and I will thank you for any suggestion and/or comment. Also, in case this question is not clear or not rigorous, please help me to improve it (I am not an expert of prime numbers). Thank you!



EDIT: A follow-up of this post can be found here, where I try to use this conjecture in order to locate the "missing primes" on the parallelograms...







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 2




    I think you will enjoy learning about wheel factorization.
    – PM 2Ring
    Aug 20 at 18:40






  • 5




    The person who downvoted this is an absolute swamp monster.
    – The Count
    Aug 21 at 2:05














up vote
28
down vote

favorite
7












As already introduced in this post, given the series of prime numbers greater than $9$, let organize them in four rows, according to their last digit ($1,3,7$ or $9$). The column in which they are displayed is the ten to which they belong, as illustrated in the following scheme.



enter image description here



Within this scheme, and given the tens $N=0,3,6,9ldots$, we can uniquely define a parallelogram by means of the four points corresponding to the four integers $N+1$, $(N+10)+1$, $(N+40)+9$ and $(N+50)+9$, as easily illustrated below.



enter image description here



For instance, the parallelogram corresponding to the ten $N=3$ is defined by the integers $31,41,79$ and $89$, whereas the one corresponding to $N=6$ is defined by $61,71,109, 119$.



My conjecture is:




On the perimeter of each parallelogram there cannot be more than $7$ primes.




In the following picture, I denote with a red cross some of the missing primes, i.e. those integers that occupy one of the $8$ possible positions that the primes can occupy on the parallelograms, but that are not primes.



enter image description here



And here some more (sorry for the bad quality).



enter image description here



(This conjecture is motivated by the fact that, if true, it can perhaps be used to devise a method to determine which point will be missing on the parallelogram $N+1$, knowing which ones are missing on the previous $N$ parallelograms, but this is another problem!).



So far, I tried to use the strategies suggested in this post, but without much success.



I apologize in case this is a trivial question, and I will thank you for any suggestion and/or comment. Also, in case this question is not clear or not rigorous, please help me to improve it (I am not an expert of prime numbers). Thank you!



EDIT: A follow-up of this post can be found here, where I try to use this conjecture in order to locate the "missing primes" on the parallelograms...







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 2




    I think you will enjoy learning about wheel factorization.
    – PM 2Ring
    Aug 20 at 18:40






  • 5




    The person who downvoted this is an absolute swamp monster.
    – The Count
    Aug 21 at 2:05












up vote
28
down vote

favorite
7









up vote
28
down vote

favorite
7






7





As already introduced in this post, given the series of prime numbers greater than $9$, let organize them in four rows, according to their last digit ($1,3,7$ or $9$). The column in which they are displayed is the ten to which they belong, as illustrated in the following scheme.



enter image description here



Within this scheme, and given the tens $N=0,3,6,9ldots$, we can uniquely define a parallelogram by means of the four points corresponding to the four integers $N+1$, $(N+10)+1$, $(N+40)+9$ and $(N+50)+9$, as easily illustrated below.



enter image description here



For instance, the parallelogram corresponding to the ten $N=3$ is defined by the integers $31,41,79$ and $89$, whereas the one corresponding to $N=6$ is defined by $61,71,109, 119$.



My conjecture is:




On the perimeter of each parallelogram there cannot be more than $7$ primes.




In the following picture, I denote with a red cross some of the missing primes, i.e. those integers that occupy one of the $8$ possible positions that the primes can occupy on the parallelograms, but that are not primes.



enter image description here



And here some more (sorry for the bad quality).



enter image description here



(This conjecture is motivated by the fact that, if true, it can perhaps be used to devise a method to determine which point will be missing on the parallelogram $N+1$, knowing which ones are missing on the previous $N$ parallelograms, but this is another problem!).



So far, I tried to use the strategies suggested in this post, but without much success.



I apologize in case this is a trivial question, and I will thank you for any suggestion and/or comment. Also, in case this question is not clear or not rigorous, please help me to improve it (I am not an expert of prime numbers). Thank you!



EDIT: A follow-up of this post can be found here, where I try to use this conjecture in order to locate the "missing primes" on the parallelograms...







share|cite|improve this question














As already introduced in this post, given the series of prime numbers greater than $9$, let organize them in four rows, according to their last digit ($1,3,7$ or $9$). The column in which they are displayed is the ten to which they belong, as illustrated in the following scheme.



enter image description here



Within this scheme, and given the tens $N=0,3,6,9ldots$, we can uniquely define a parallelogram by means of the four points corresponding to the four integers $N+1$, $(N+10)+1$, $(N+40)+9$ and $(N+50)+9$, as easily illustrated below.



enter image description here



For instance, the parallelogram corresponding to the ten $N=3$ is defined by the integers $31,41,79$ and $89$, whereas the one corresponding to $N=6$ is defined by $61,71,109, 119$.



My conjecture is:




On the perimeter of each parallelogram there cannot be more than $7$ primes.




In the following picture, I denote with a red cross some of the missing primes, i.e. those integers that occupy one of the $8$ possible positions that the primes can occupy on the parallelograms, but that are not primes.



enter image description here



And here some more (sorry for the bad quality).



enter image description here



(This conjecture is motivated by the fact that, if true, it can perhaps be used to devise a method to determine which point will be missing on the parallelogram $N+1$, knowing which ones are missing on the previous $N$ parallelograms, but this is another problem!).



So far, I tried to use the strategies suggested in this post, but without much success.



I apologize in case this is a trivial question, and I will thank you for any suggestion and/or comment. Also, in case this question is not clear or not rigorous, please help me to improve it (I am not an expert of prime numbers). Thank you!



EDIT: A follow-up of this post can be found here, where I try to use this conjecture in order to locate the "missing primes" on the parallelograms...









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 21 at 20:52

























asked Aug 20 at 8:08









Andrea Prunotto

1,284625




1,284625







  • 2




    I think you will enjoy learning about wheel factorization.
    – PM 2Ring
    Aug 20 at 18:40






  • 5




    The person who downvoted this is an absolute swamp monster.
    – The Count
    Aug 21 at 2:05












  • 2




    I think you will enjoy learning about wheel factorization.
    – PM 2Ring
    Aug 20 at 18:40






  • 5




    The person who downvoted this is an absolute swamp monster.
    – The Count
    Aug 21 at 2:05







2




2




I think you will enjoy learning about wheel factorization.
– PM 2Ring
Aug 20 at 18:40




I think you will enjoy learning about wheel factorization.
– PM 2Ring
Aug 20 at 18:40




5




5




The person who downvoted this is an absolute swamp monster.
– The Count
Aug 21 at 2:05




The person who downvoted this is an absolute swamp monster.
– The Count
Aug 21 at 2:05










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
35
down vote



accepted










The eight points on each parallelogram cover all residues mod 7.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    Thanks! Please, can you expand your answer a bit more? I am not very familiar with this topic, and I did not get the connection between your answer and the problem. Thanks again!
    – Andrea Prunotto
    Aug 20 at 8:29






  • 9




    @Andrea The point is that at least one of the eight numbers on any parallelogram is divisible by 7 and therefore not a prime number.
    – Marc Paul
    Aug 20 at 8:53










  • @MarcPaul Thank you. I got it now! But of course, this does not help to predict which points will be missing on the $N$-th parallelogram, if we know which ones are missing in the previous $N-1$ parallelograms, right?
    – Andrea Prunotto
    Aug 20 at 9:06







  • 1




    @AndreaPrunotto : you should ask another question if you have another precise request (this one was nice and fun, btw)
    – Evargalo
    Aug 20 at 13:25






  • 1




    @Evargalo Sure, you're definitely right. I will do it, after having edited the pictures! : )
    – Andrea Prunotto
    Aug 20 at 13:28

















up vote
12
down vote













This is an expansion of Michal's answer. We can find a multiple of 7 on each of the first seven parallelograms: 49, 77, 119, 91, 133, 161, 203.



Now every parallelogram can be obtained by taking one of these first seven parallelograms and adding 210 to each point. Since 210 is a multiple of 7, each point listed above will be translated onto missing points. This gives a way to compute a missing point on every parallelogram: if you find the remainder mod 210 of the points on the parallelogram, it must contain one of the seven values I listed above.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    I think I have a closed formula for the missing points. These seem to be (conjeture, but should not be difficult to prove) the composite integers $ninmathbbN$ such that $n=pm 1 mod 6$. This sequence gives: 1,25,35,49,55,65,77,85,91,95,115,119,121...






    share|cite|improve this answer


















    • 1




      Every positive integer, prime or composite (or 1!), is on one of the parallelograms if and only if it is congruent to $pm 1 mod 6$. The parallelograms were presumably constructed this way in the first place because except for 2 and 3, numbers with any other residues mod 6 will never be prime.
      – aschepler
      Aug 20 at 22:18










    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );








     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2888522%2fa-conjecture-involving-prime-numbers-and-parallelograms%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    35
    down vote



    accepted










    The eight points on each parallelogram cover all residues mod 7.






    share|cite|improve this answer
















    • 1




      Thanks! Please, can you expand your answer a bit more? I am not very familiar with this topic, and I did not get the connection between your answer and the problem. Thanks again!
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 8:29






    • 9




      @Andrea The point is that at least one of the eight numbers on any parallelogram is divisible by 7 and therefore not a prime number.
      – Marc Paul
      Aug 20 at 8:53










    • @MarcPaul Thank you. I got it now! But of course, this does not help to predict which points will be missing on the $N$-th parallelogram, if we know which ones are missing in the previous $N-1$ parallelograms, right?
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 9:06







    • 1




      @AndreaPrunotto : you should ask another question if you have another precise request (this one was nice and fun, btw)
      – Evargalo
      Aug 20 at 13:25






    • 1




      @Evargalo Sure, you're definitely right. I will do it, after having edited the pictures! : )
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 13:28














    up vote
    35
    down vote



    accepted










    The eight points on each parallelogram cover all residues mod 7.






    share|cite|improve this answer
















    • 1




      Thanks! Please, can you expand your answer a bit more? I am not very familiar with this topic, and I did not get the connection between your answer and the problem. Thanks again!
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 8:29






    • 9




      @Andrea The point is that at least one of the eight numbers on any parallelogram is divisible by 7 and therefore not a prime number.
      – Marc Paul
      Aug 20 at 8:53










    • @MarcPaul Thank you. I got it now! But of course, this does not help to predict which points will be missing on the $N$-th parallelogram, if we know which ones are missing in the previous $N-1$ parallelograms, right?
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 9:06







    • 1




      @AndreaPrunotto : you should ask another question if you have another precise request (this one was nice and fun, btw)
      – Evargalo
      Aug 20 at 13:25






    • 1




      @Evargalo Sure, you're definitely right. I will do it, after having edited the pictures! : )
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 13:28












    up vote
    35
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    35
    down vote



    accepted






    The eight points on each parallelogram cover all residues mod 7.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    The eight points on each parallelogram cover all residues mod 7.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Aug 20 at 8:23









    Michal Adamaszek

    1,64948




    1,64948







    • 1




      Thanks! Please, can you expand your answer a bit more? I am not very familiar with this topic, and I did not get the connection between your answer and the problem. Thanks again!
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 8:29






    • 9




      @Andrea The point is that at least one of the eight numbers on any parallelogram is divisible by 7 and therefore not a prime number.
      – Marc Paul
      Aug 20 at 8:53










    • @MarcPaul Thank you. I got it now! But of course, this does not help to predict which points will be missing on the $N$-th parallelogram, if we know which ones are missing in the previous $N-1$ parallelograms, right?
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 9:06







    • 1




      @AndreaPrunotto : you should ask another question if you have another precise request (this one was nice and fun, btw)
      – Evargalo
      Aug 20 at 13:25






    • 1




      @Evargalo Sure, you're definitely right. I will do it, after having edited the pictures! : )
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 13:28












    • 1




      Thanks! Please, can you expand your answer a bit more? I am not very familiar with this topic, and I did not get the connection between your answer and the problem. Thanks again!
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 8:29






    • 9




      @Andrea The point is that at least one of the eight numbers on any parallelogram is divisible by 7 and therefore not a prime number.
      – Marc Paul
      Aug 20 at 8:53










    • @MarcPaul Thank you. I got it now! But of course, this does not help to predict which points will be missing on the $N$-th parallelogram, if we know which ones are missing in the previous $N-1$ parallelograms, right?
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 9:06







    • 1




      @AndreaPrunotto : you should ask another question if you have another precise request (this one was nice and fun, btw)
      – Evargalo
      Aug 20 at 13:25






    • 1




      @Evargalo Sure, you're definitely right. I will do it, after having edited the pictures! : )
      – Andrea Prunotto
      Aug 20 at 13:28







    1




    1




    Thanks! Please, can you expand your answer a bit more? I am not very familiar with this topic, and I did not get the connection between your answer and the problem. Thanks again!
    – Andrea Prunotto
    Aug 20 at 8:29




    Thanks! Please, can you expand your answer a bit more? I am not very familiar with this topic, and I did not get the connection between your answer and the problem. Thanks again!
    – Andrea Prunotto
    Aug 20 at 8:29




    9




    9




    @Andrea The point is that at least one of the eight numbers on any parallelogram is divisible by 7 and therefore not a prime number.
    – Marc Paul
    Aug 20 at 8:53




    @Andrea The point is that at least one of the eight numbers on any parallelogram is divisible by 7 and therefore not a prime number.
    – Marc Paul
    Aug 20 at 8:53












    @MarcPaul Thank you. I got it now! But of course, this does not help to predict which points will be missing on the $N$-th parallelogram, if we know which ones are missing in the previous $N-1$ parallelograms, right?
    – Andrea Prunotto
    Aug 20 at 9:06





    @MarcPaul Thank you. I got it now! But of course, this does not help to predict which points will be missing on the $N$-th parallelogram, if we know which ones are missing in the previous $N-1$ parallelograms, right?
    – Andrea Prunotto
    Aug 20 at 9:06





    1




    1




    @AndreaPrunotto : you should ask another question if you have another precise request (this one was nice and fun, btw)
    – Evargalo
    Aug 20 at 13:25




    @AndreaPrunotto : you should ask another question if you have another precise request (this one was nice and fun, btw)
    – Evargalo
    Aug 20 at 13:25




    1




    1




    @Evargalo Sure, you're definitely right. I will do it, after having edited the pictures! : )
    – Andrea Prunotto
    Aug 20 at 13:28




    @Evargalo Sure, you're definitely right. I will do it, after having edited the pictures! : )
    – Andrea Prunotto
    Aug 20 at 13:28










    up vote
    12
    down vote













    This is an expansion of Michal's answer. We can find a multiple of 7 on each of the first seven parallelograms: 49, 77, 119, 91, 133, 161, 203.



    Now every parallelogram can be obtained by taking one of these first seven parallelograms and adding 210 to each point. Since 210 is a multiple of 7, each point listed above will be translated onto missing points. This gives a way to compute a missing point on every parallelogram: if you find the remainder mod 210 of the points on the parallelogram, it must contain one of the seven values I listed above.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      12
      down vote













      This is an expansion of Michal's answer. We can find a multiple of 7 on each of the first seven parallelograms: 49, 77, 119, 91, 133, 161, 203.



      Now every parallelogram can be obtained by taking one of these first seven parallelograms and adding 210 to each point. Since 210 is a multiple of 7, each point listed above will be translated onto missing points. This gives a way to compute a missing point on every parallelogram: if you find the remainder mod 210 of the points on the parallelogram, it must contain one of the seven values I listed above.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        12
        down vote










        up vote
        12
        down vote









        This is an expansion of Michal's answer. We can find a multiple of 7 on each of the first seven parallelograms: 49, 77, 119, 91, 133, 161, 203.



        Now every parallelogram can be obtained by taking one of these first seven parallelograms and adding 210 to each point. Since 210 is a multiple of 7, each point listed above will be translated onto missing points. This gives a way to compute a missing point on every parallelogram: if you find the remainder mod 210 of the points on the parallelogram, it must contain one of the seven values I listed above.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        This is an expansion of Michal's answer. We can find a multiple of 7 on each of the first seven parallelograms: 49, 77, 119, 91, 133, 161, 203.



        Now every parallelogram can be obtained by taking one of these first seven parallelograms and adding 210 to each point. Since 210 is a multiple of 7, each point listed above will be translated onto missing points. This gives a way to compute a missing point on every parallelogram: if you find the remainder mod 210 of the points on the parallelogram, it must contain one of the seven values I listed above.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Aug 20 at 16:39









        Jonathan Love

        1693




        1693




















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            I think I have a closed formula for the missing points. These seem to be (conjeture, but should not be difficult to prove) the composite integers $ninmathbbN$ such that $n=pm 1 mod 6$. This sequence gives: 1,25,35,49,55,65,77,85,91,95,115,119,121...






            share|cite|improve this answer


















            • 1




              Every positive integer, prime or composite (or 1!), is on one of the parallelograms if and only if it is congruent to $pm 1 mod 6$. The parallelograms were presumably constructed this way in the first place because except for 2 and 3, numbers with any other residues mod 6 will never be prime.
              – aschepler
              Aug 20 at 22:18














            up vote
            2
            down vote













            I think I have a closed formula for the missing points. These seem to be (conjeture, but should not be difficult to prove) the composite integers $ninmathbbN$ such that $n=pm 1 mod 6$. This sequence gives: 1,25,35,49,55,65,77,85,91,95,115,119,121...






            share|cite|improve this answer


















            • 1




              Every positive integer, prime or composite (or 1!), is on one of the parallelograms if and only if it is congruent to $pm 1 mod 6$. The parallelograms were presumably constructed this way in the first place because except for 2 and 3, numbers with any other residues mod 6 will never be prime.
              – aschepler
              Aug 20 at 22:18












            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            I think I have a closed formula for the missing points. These seem to be (conjeture, but should not be difficult to prove) the composite integers $ninmathbbN$ such that $n=pm 1 mod 6$. This sequence gives: 1,25,35,49,55,65,77,85,91,95,115,119,121...






            share|cite|improve this answer














            I think I have a closed formula for the missing points. These seem to be (conjeture, but should not be difficult to prove) the composite integers $ninmathbbN$ such that $n=pm 1 mod 6$. This sequence gives: 1,25,35,49,55,65,77,85,91,95,115,119,121...







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Aug 20 at 16:48

























            answered Aug 20 at 10:39









            galois1989

            508




            508







            • 1




              Every positive integer, prime or composite (or 1!), is on one of the parallelograms if and only if it is congruent to $pm 1 mod 6$. The parallelograms were presumably constructed this way in the first place because except for 2 and 3, numbers with any other residues mod 6 will never be prime.
              – aschepler
              Aug 20 at 22:18












            • 1




              Every positive integer, prime or composite (or 1!), is on one of the parallelograms if and only if it is congruent to $pm 1 mod 6$. The parallelograms were presumably constructed this way in the first place because except for 2 and 3, numbers with any other residues mod 6 will never be prime.
              – aschepler
              Aug 20 at 22:18







            1




            1




            Every positive integer, prime or composite (or 1!), is on one of the parallelograms if and only if it is congruent to $pm 1 mod 6$. The parallelograms were presumably constructed this way in the first place because except for 2 and 3, numbers with any other residues mod 6 will never be prime.
            – aschepler
            Aug 20 at 22:18




            Every positive integer, prime or composite (or 1!), is on one of the parallelograms if and only if it is congruent to $pm 1 mod 6$. The parallelograms were presumably constructed this way in the first place because except for 2 and 3, numbers with any other residues mod 6 will never be prime.
            – aschepler
            Aug 20 at 22:18












             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


























             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2888522%2fa-conjecture-involving-prime-numbers-and-parallelograms%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

            Amount of Number Combinations to Reach a Sum of 10 With Integers 1-9 Using 2 or More Integers [closed]