This question is inspired by Fortune's conjecture .
Can you provide proofs or counterexamples for the following two claims :
First claim
If $q$ is the smallest prime greater than $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n C_i+1$ , where $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n C_i$ is the product of the first $n$ composite numbers , then $q-\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n C_i$ is prime .
The first few such differences are :
3,5,5,5,11,7,23,11,29,17,31...
Second claim
If $q$ is the greatest prime less than $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n C_i-1$ , where $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n C_i$ is the product of the first $n$ composite numbers , then $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n C_i-q$ is prime .
The first few such differences are :
2,5,11,5,23,17,13,11,13,23,53...
I have tested both claims up to $n=660$ and there were no counterexamples .
here's a list of things we know ( it's a hint or help not an strictly an answer ,partly because I don't know ):
q-product for n>1 will have the same modular remainder mod 6 as q.
When we take the product up to 2n, we get at least all the primes less than or equal to n up to exponents of 1 or more.
all primes less than ${2\over 3}n$ appear at least twice in the product in 2.
Generally,all primes less than ${2\over a}n$ will appear at least a-1 times in the product in 2.
This all means the difference can't divide by any product within the product because then q would not be prime. n# is within this product. so the difference ( again 2n case) has already been trial factored up to n.