How long does it take for this sequence to obtain this loop?












3












$begingroup$


For positive integers $m,n$, define a sequence $S_m(n)$ so that $S_m(1)=m$, $S_m(n+1)=S_m(n)^2-1$ if $S_m(n)$ is prime, and $S_m(n+1)$ is the greatest prime factor of $S_m(n)$ otherwise. It is clear that, regardless of $m$, this sequence always gets caught in the infinite loop $2,3,8,2,3,dots$, because for any prime $p$, $p^2-1=(p+1)(p-1)$ and if $pneq 2$ then the greatest prime factor of this term is at most $lceil p/2rceil<p$.



What is less clear, is the rate at which the sequence becomes stuck into that loop. If we define $t(m)$ to be the smallest integer $n$ so that $S_m(n)=2$, then how does $t(m)$ grow? By some numerical testing I've found that $t(m)<20$ for all $m<10000$, which seems to suggest a logarithmic growth speed. In addition, for any positive integer $N$, is it always true that there exists an $m$ so that $t(m)>N$? Any thoughts are appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    For positive integers $m,n$, define a sequence $S_m(n)$ so that $S_m(1)=m$, $S_m(n+1)=S_m(n)^2-1$ if $S_m(n)$ is prime, and $S_m(n+1)$ is the greatest prime factor of $S_m(n)$ otherwise. It is clear that, regardless of $m$, this sequence always gets caught in the infinite loop $2,3,8,2,3,dots$, because for any prime $p$, $p^2-1=(p+1)(p-1)$ and if $pneq 2$ then the greatest prime factor of this term is at most $lceil p/2rceil<p$.



    What is less clear, is the rate at which the sequence becomes stuck into that loop. If we define $t(m)$ to be the smallest integer $n$ so that $S_m(n)=2$, then how does $t(m)$ grow? By some numerical testing I've found that $t(m)<20$ for all $m<10000$, which seems to suggest a logarithmic growth speed. In addition, for any positive integer $N$, is it always true that there exists an $m$ so that $t(m)>N$? Any thoughts are appreciated!










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3


      1



      $begingroup$


      For positive integers $m,n$, define a sequence $S_m(n)$ so that $S_m(1)=m$, $S_m(n+1)=S_m(n)^2-1$ if $S_m(n)$ is prime, and $S_m(n+1)$ is the greatest prime factor of $S_m(n)$ otherwise. It is clear that, regardless of $m$, this sequence always gets caught in the infinite loop $2,3,8,2,3,dots$, because for any prime $p$, $p^2-1=(p+1)(p-1)$ and if $pneq 2$ then the greatest prime factor of this term is at most $lceil p/2rceil<p$.



      What is less clear, is the rate at which the sequence becomes stuck into that loop. If we define $t(m)$ to be the smallest integer $n$ so that $S_m(n)=2$, then how does $t(m)$ grow? By some numerical testing I've found that $t(m)<20$ for all $m<10000$, which seems to suggest a logarithmic growth speed. In addition, for any positive integer $N$, is it always true that there exists an $m$ so that $t(m)>N$? Any thoughts are appreciated!










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      For positive integers $m,n$, define a sequence $S_m(n)$ so that $S_m(1)=m$, $S_m(n+1)=S_m(n)^2-1$ if $S_m(n)$ is prime, and $S_m(n+1)$ is the greatest prime factor of $S_m(n)$ otherwise. It is clear that, regardless of $m$, this sequence always gets caught in the infinite loop $2,3,8,2,3,dots$, because for any prime $p$, $p^2-1=(p+1)(p-1)$ and if $pneq 2$ then the greatest prime factor of this term is at most $lceil p/2rceil<p$.



      What is less clear, is the rate at which the sequence becomes stuck into that loop. If we define $t(m)$ to be the smallest integer $n$ so that $S_m(n)=2$, then how does $t(m)$ grow? By some numerical testing I've found that $t(m)<20$ for all $m<10000$, which seems to suggest a logarithmic growth speed. In addition, for any positive integer $N$, is it always true that there exists an $m$ so that $t(m)>N$? Any thoughts are appreciated!







      sequences-and-series elementary-number-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 20 '18 at 10:31









      YiFanYiFan

      4,3241627




      4,3241627






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Recording the following observation to get the ball rolling.



          Assume that $ell>2$ is a Sophie Germain prime, in other words, a prime such that $p=2ell+1$ is also a prime. In that case
          $$
          (p+1)(p-1)=(2ell+2)cdot2ell=2^3cdotfrac{ell+1}2ell
          $$

          implying that $ell$ is the largest prime factor of $p^2-1$. So if $S_m(n)=p$ then $S_m(n+2)=ell$.



          A Cunningham chain of length $k$ is a sequence of iterated Sophie Germain primes
          $$p_1<p_2<p_3<cdots<p_k$$
          such that $p_{i+1}=2p_i+1$ for all $i$. For example, $5<11<23<47$ is Cunningham sequence of length $4$. Iterating the argument of the previous paragraph tells us that if $S_m(n)=p_k$ for some $m,n$, then $S_m(n+2(k-1))=p_1$. This implies that if a Cunngham chain of length $k$ exists, then it takes about $2k$ steps for your sequence to come down to $p_1$.



          According to the cited Wikipedia page it is an open conjucture that arbitrarily long Cunningham chains exist. In light of the above that conjecture would imply that the function $t$ is unbounded.





          Of course, there is no need to have longer and longer Cunningham chains for $t$ to be unbounded. I just felt that this connection may be interesting. It is, of course, easy to show that the set of prime factors of numbers of the form $p^2-1$ is unbounded, but I couldn't see how unboundedness of $t$ would follow from such a simple fact.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Very interesting, thanks. I haven't thought of the connection to Cunningham chains before.
            $endgroup$
            – YiFan
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:20






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed about my inability to prove that $t$ is undounded. It should (?) be possible to prove that a large enough class of primes appears as values of $S_m(3)$, inductively argue that the set of values of $S_m(2k+1)$ is not bounded for any $k$, but... no cigar.
            $endgroup$
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:36











          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',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          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%2f3047386%2fhow-long-does-it-take-for-this-sequence-to-obtain-this-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          Recording the following observation to get the ball rolling.



          Assume that $ell>2$ is a Sophie Germain prime, in other words, a prime such that $p=2ell+1$ is also a prime. In that case
          $$
          (p+1)(p-1)=(2ell+2)cdot2ell=2^3cdotfrac{ell+1}2ell
          $$

          implying that $ell$ is the largest prime factor of $p^2-1$. So if $S_m(n)=p$ then $S_m(n+2)=ell$.



          A Cunningham chain of length $k$ is a sequence of iterated Sophie Germain primes
          $$p_1<p_2<p_3<cdots<p_k$$
          such that $p_{i+1}=2p_i+1$ for all $i$. For example, $5<11<23<47$ is Cunningham sequence of length $4$. Iterating the argument of the previous paragraph tells us that if $S_m(n)=p_k$ for some $m,n$, then $S_m(n+2(k-1))=p_1$. This implies that if a Cunngham chain of length $k$ exists, then it takes about $2k$ steps for your sequence to come down to $p_1$.



          According to the cited Wikipedia page it is an open conjucture that arbitrarily long Cunningham chains exist. In light of the above that conjecture would imply that the function $t$ is unbounded.





          Of course, there is no need to have longer and longer Cunningham chains for $t$ to be unbounded. I just felt that this connection may be interesting. It is, of course, easy to show that the set of prime factors of numbers of the form $p^2-1$ is unbounded, but I couldn't see how unboundedness of $t$ would follow from such a simple fact.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Very interesting, thanks. I haven't thought of the connection to Cunningham chains before.
            $endgroup$
            – YiFan
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:20






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed about my inability to prove that $t$ is undounded. It should (?) be possible to prove that a large enough class of primes appears as values of $S_m(3)$, inductively argue that the set of values of $S_m(2k+1)$ is not bounded for any $k$, but... no cigar.
            $endgroup$
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:36
















          1












          $begingroup$

          Recording the following observation to get the ball rolling.



          Assume that $ell>2$ is a Sophie Germain prime, in other words, a prime such that $p=2ell+1$ is also a prime. In that case
          $$
          (p+1)(p-1)=(2ell+2)cdot2ell=2^3cdotfrac{ell+1}2ell
          $$

          implying that $ell$ is the largest prime factor of $p^2-1$. So if $S_m(n)=p$ then $S_m(n+2)=ell$.



          A Cunningham chain of length $k$ is a sequence of iterated Sophie Germain primes
          $$p_1<p_2<p_3<cdots<p_k$$
          such that $p_{i+1}=2p_i+1$ for all $i$. For example, $5<11<23<47$ is Cunningham sequence of length $4$. Iterating the argument of the previous paragraph tells us that if $S_m(n)=p_k$ for some $m,n$, then $S_m(n+2(k-1))=p_1$. This implies that if a Cunngham chain of length $k$ exists, then it takes about $2k$ steps for your sequence to come down to $p_1$.



          According to the cited Wikipedia page it is an open conjucture that arbitrarily long Cunningham chains exist. In light of the above that conjecture would imply that the function $t$ is unbounded.





          Of course, there is no need to have longer and longer Cunningham chains for $t$ to be unbounded. I just felt that this connection may be interesting. It is, of course, easy to show that the set of prime factors of numbers of the form $p^2-1$ is unbounded, but I couldn't see how unboundedness of $t$ would follow from such a simple fact.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Very interesting, thanks. I haven't thought of the connection to Cunningham chains before.
            $endgroup$
            – YiFan
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:20






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed about my inability to prove that $t$ is undounded. It should (?) be possible to prove that a large enough class of primes appears as values of $S_m(3)$, inductively argue that the set of values of $S_m(2k+1)$ is not bounded for any $k$, but... no cigar.
            $endgroup$
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:36














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Recording the following observation to get the ball rolling.



          Assume that $ell>2$ is a Sophie Germain prime, in other words, a prime such that $p=2ell+1$ is also a prime. In that case
          $$
          (p+1)(p-1)=(2ell+2)cdot2ell=2^3cdotfrac{ell+1}2ell
          $$

          implying that $ell$ is the largest prime factor of $p^2-1$. So if $S_m(n)=p$ then $S_m(n+2)=ell$.



          A Cunningham chain of length $k$ is a sequence of iterated Sophie Germain primes
          $$p_1<p_2<p_3<cdots<p_k$$
          such that $p_{i+1}=2p_i+1$ for all $i$. For example, $5<11<23<47$ is Cunningham sequence of length $4$. Iterating the argument of the previous paragraph tells us that if $S_m(n)=p_k$ for some $m,n$, then $S_m(n+2(k-1))=p_1$. This implies that if a Cunngham chain of length $k$ exists, then it takes about $2k$ steps for your sequence to come down to $p_1$.



          According to the cited Wikipedia page it is an open conjucture that arbitrarily long Cunningham chains exist. In light of the above that conjecture would imply that the function $t$ is unbounded.





          Of course, there is no need to have longer and longer Cunningham chains for $t$ to be unbounded. I just felt that this connection may be interesting. It is, of course, easy to show that the set of prime factors of numbers of the form $p^2-1$ is unbounded, but I couldn't see how unboundedness of $t$ would follow from such a simple fact.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Recording the following observation to get the ball rolling.



          Assume that $ell>2$ is a Sophie Germain prime, in other words, a prime such that $p=2ell+1$ is also a prime. In that case
          $$
          (p+1)(p-1)=(2ell+2)cdot2ell=2^3cdotfrac{ell+1}2ell
          $$

          implying that $ell$ is the largest prime factor of $p^2-1$. So if $S_m(n)=p$ then $S_m(n+2)=ell$.



          A Cunningham chain of length $k$ is a sequence of iterated Sophie Germain primes
          $$p_1<p_2<p_3<cdots<p_k$$
          such that $p_{i+1}=2p_i+1$ for all $i$. For example, $5<11<23<47$ is Cunningham sequence of length $4$. Iterating the argument of the previous paragraph tells us that if $S_m(n)=p_k$ for some $m,n$, then $S_m(n+2(k-1))=p_1$. This implies that if a Cunngham chain of length $k$ exists, then it takes about $2k$ steps for your sequence to come down to $p_1$.



          According to the cited Wikipedia page it is an open conjucture that arbitrarily long Cunningham chains exist. In light of the above that conjecture would imply that the function $t$ is unbounded.





          Of course, there is no need to have longer and longer Cunningham chains for $t$ to be unbounded. I just felt that this connection may be interesting. It is, of course, easy to show that the set of prime factors of numbers of the form $p^2-1$ is unbounded, but I couldn't see how unboundedness of $t$ would follow from such a simple fact.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 20 '18 at 14:43









          Jyrki LahtonenJyrki Lahtonen

          109k13170376




          109k13170376












          • $begingroup$
            Very interesting, thanks. I haven't thought of the connection to Cunningham chains before.
            $endgroup$
            – YiFan
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:20






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed about my inability to prove that $t$ is undounded. It should (?) be possible to prove that a large enough class of primes appears as values of $S_m(3)$, inductively argue that the set of values of $S_m(2k+1)$ is not bounded for any $k$, but... no cigar.
            $endgroup$
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:36


















          • $begingroup$
            Very interesting, thanks. I haven't thought of the connection to Cunningham chains before.
            $endgroup$
            – YiFan
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:20






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed about my inability to prove that $t$ is undounded. It should (?) be possible to prove that a large enough class of primes appears as values of $S_m(3)$, inductively argue that the set of values of $S_m(2k+1)$ is not bounded for any $k$, but... no cigar.
            $endgroup$
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Dec 21 '18 at 5:36
















          $begingroup$
          Very interesting, thanks. I haven't thought of the connection to Cunningham chains before.
          $endgroup$
          – YiFan
          Dec 21 '18 at 5:20




          $begingroup$
          Very interesting, thanks. I haven't thought of the connection to Cunningham chains before.
          $endgroup$
          – YiFan
          Dec 21 '18 at 5:20




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed about my inability to prove that $t$ is undounded. It should (?) be possible to prove that a large enough class of primes appears as values of $S_m(3)$, inductively argue that the set of values of $S_m(2k+1)$ is not bounded for any $k$, but... no cigar.
          $endgroup$
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Dec 21 '18 at 5:36




          $begingroup$
          To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed about my inability to prove that $t$ is undounded. It should (?) be possible to prove that a large enough class of primes appears as values of $S_m(3)$, inductively argue that the set of values of $S_m(2k+1)$ is not bounded for any $k$, but... no cigar.
          $endgroup$
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Dec 21 '18 at 5:36


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047386%2fhow-long-does-it-take-for-this-sequence-to-obtain-this-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Wiesbaden

          Marschland

          Dieringhausen