## You are here

HomeFortune's conjecture

## Primary tabs

# Fortune’s conjecture

(Reo F. Fortune) For any integer $n>0$, the difference between the primorial

$n\#=\prod_{{i=1}}^{{\pi(n)}}p_{i}$ |

(where $\pi(x)$ is the prime counting function and $p_{i}$ is the $i$th prime number) and the nearest prime number above (excluding the possible primorial prime $n\#+1$) is always a prime number. That is, any Fortunate number is a Fortunate prime.

It is obvious that since $n\#$ is divisible by each prime $p<p_{{\pi(n)}}$, then each $n\#+p$ will also be divisible by that same $p$ and thus not prime. If there is a prime $q>n\#+1$ such that there is a composite number $m=q-n\#$, then $m$ would have to have at least two prime factors both of which would have to be divisible by primes greater than $p_{{\pi(n)}}$.

Despite verification for the first thousand primorials, this conjecture remains unproven as of 2007. Disproof could require finding a composite Fortunate number. Such a number would have to be odd, and indeed not divisible by the first thousand primes. Chris Caldwell, writing for the Prime Pages, argues that by the prime number theorem, finding a composite Fortunate number is tantamount to searching for a prime gap at least $(\log n\#)^{2}$ long immediately following a primorial, something he considers unlikely.

# References

- 1 S. W. Golomb, “The evidence for Fortune’s conjecture,” Math. Mag. 54 (1981): 209 - 210. MR 82i:10053

## Mathematics Subject Classification

11A41*no label found*

- Forums
- Planetary Bugs
- HS/Secondary
- University/Tertiary
- Graduate/Advanced
- Industry/Practice
- Research Topics
- LaTeX help
- Math Comptetitions
- Math History
- Math Humor
- PlanetMath Comments
- PlanetMath System Updates and News
- PlanetMath help
- PlanetMath.ORG
- Strategic Communications Development
- The Math Pub
- Testing messages (ignore)

- Other useful stuff
- Corrections