I have a question on prime factors of composite integers.
It is known that for any composite integer N, N must contain a prime factor $p$ $\leqslant$ $\sqrt n$. I then thought of the following question:
Suppose N $\leqslant$ $x$ $\leqslant$ N + 3, and all integers in that range are composite. Is it true that for at least one $x$ in that range, $x$ contains exactly one prime factor $p$ $>$ $\sqrt n$ ? Could this be proved for all sets of 4 consecutive, composite integers?
I tried a few examples, and noticed that this pattern holds (obviously, a few examples won't cut it - a formal proof is needed to verify its truth, or a counterexample for its falsity). For example, let us take the set of 4 composite, consecutive integers {32, 33, 34, 35}. Assume that N = 32. The square root of 32 is around 5.65. So we know that 32 must have a prime factor less than 5.65. Indeed, it does, since 32 = 2^5. However, there does exist at least one integer in that set that contains exactly one prime factor larger than 5.65, namely, 33, which is 3 x 11, and 11 $>$ 5.65. The numbers 34 and 35 also meet this criterion, since both 17 and 7 are greater than 5.65.
I do know (and it is obvious) that if such an integer M existed with one prime factor $p_i$ $>$ $\sqrt n$, then that integer M must contain exactly one, and only one, prime factor of that sort, since if another prime factor $p_j$ existed in the prime factorization of M, and $p_j$ $>$ $\sqrt n$, then $p_i$$p_j$ $>$ M, which contradicts the existence of $p_j$ in the prime factorization of M itself. However, the existence of at least one integer, $x$, in the given range N $\leqslant$ $x$ $\leqslant$ N + 3, and where x contains only one prime factor $p$ $>$ $\sqrt n$ - I am not sure of. But I am confident that it could be true.
So is it possible that this is the case for every set of 4 consecutive, composite integers? Could it formally be proven?
well, no
smallest
another
FIVE
SIX
EIGHT