B.D: Proving C_m^+ in Lucas-Lehmer Test (LLT)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter T.Rex
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Test
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving properties related to the Lucas-Lehmer Test (LLT) and the associated LLT numbers, specifically the sum of positive coefficients of polynomials derived from the LLT. Participants explore various mathematical conjectures, proofs, and relationships involving these numbers and their connection to Fermat primes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant introduces the concept of LLT numbers and proposes a formula for the sum of positive coefficients, C_m^+, suggesting a potential proof is needed.
  • Another participant hints at using induction to prove the proposed formula for C_m^+.
  • A different participant suggests a relationship involving C_m^+ and the values of L^m at specific points, indicating a possible simplification.
  • One participant claims to have found a proof after considering complex numbers, specifically using "i".
  • Further conjectures are made regarding the relationship between LLT numbers and Fermat primes, with specific modular conditions proposed for proof.
  • Participants discuss the potential inclusion of their contributions in a future paper, emphasizing the collaborative nature of the inquiry.
  • Connections are drawn between LLT numbers and Lucas numbers, with references to established mathematical literature and methods for proving related theorems.
  • Discussion includes observations about sequences related to the LLT and their properties, with some participants questioning the novelty of their findings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various conjectures and approaches to proving the properties of LLT numbers, but no consensus is reached on the proofs or the validity of the proposed relationships. Multiple competing views and methods remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference established mathematical concepts and literature, but the discussion remains focused on conjectures and proofs that are not universally accepted or resolved. The exploration of relationships between LLT numbers and Fermat primes is particularly complex and unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

Mathematicians and enthusiasts interested in number theory, particularly those studying the Lucas-Lehmer Test, Fermat primes, and related polynomial properties.

T.Rex
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Let's say: L(x)=x^2-2 , L^1 = L, L^m = L \circ L^{m-1} = L \circ L \circ L \ldots \circ L.
Where L(x) is the polynomial used in the Lucas-Lehmer Test (LLT) :
S_0=4 \ , \ S_{i+1}=S_i^2-2=L(S_i) \ ; \ M_q \text{ is prime } \Longleftrightarrow \ S_{q-2} \equiv 0 modulo M_q .

We have:
L^2(x)=x^4-4x^2+2
L^3(x)=x^8-8x^6+20x^4-16x^2+2
L^4(x)=x^{16}-16x^{14}+104x^{12}-352x^{10}+660x^8-672x^6+336x^4-64x^2+2

Let's call C_m^+ the sum of the positive coefficients of the polynomial L^m(x).
We call C_m^+ a "LLT number": C_1^+ = 1 , C_2^+ = 3 , \ C_3^+ = 23 , \ C_4^+ = 1103 , \ C_5^+ = 2435423 .

It seems that we have the formula: C_m^+ = 2^m \prod_{i=1}^{m-1} C_{i}^+ - 1 \ \ \text{ for: } m>1.

How to prove it ? (I have no idea ...)

T.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
T.Rex said:
How to prove it ? (I have no idea ...)

T.

Induction?
 
If that pattern of alternating signs keeps up, oberve that

<br /> C_m^+ = \frac{L^m(i) + L^m(1)}{2}<br />
 
Got it !

OK. I've got a proof. Thanks for the hints! Not so difficult once you think using "i" !
T.
 
LLT numbers and Fermat primes

Now, more difficult, I think.
Can you prove:

\prod_{i=1}^{2^n-1}C_i^{+} \equiv 1 \pmod{F_n}\ \ iff \ \ F_n=2^{2^n}+1 is prime.

T.
 
Last edited:
Better, simpler

Can you prove:

C_{2^n}^{+} \equiv -2 \pmod{F_n} \ \Longleftrightarrow \ F_n=2^{2^n}+1 \text{ is prime.}.

T.
 
T.Rex said:
Can you prove:

C_{2^n}^{+} \equiv -2 \pmod{F_n} \ \Longleftrightarrow \ F_n=2^{2^n}+1 \text{ is prime.}.

T.

If it has already been proven then why ask us? If not, do you intend to include our names in the published paper as sources of help?
 
Hello,
Playdo said:
If it has already been proven then why ask us ?
I'm an amateur: I play with numbers and try to find nice/interesting properties about nice numbers. I have no proof of this one. I like the way Hurkyl did: he gave an hint and then some of the Maths I learned 30 years ago plus the Number Theory I've learned these last years come back and I try to find the proof.
If not, do you intend to include our names in the published paper as sources of help?
Sure. Last year I asked questions in this forum and got answers and proofs and I wrote a paper where I said who helped me. If I write a paper about the LLT numbers, I'll talk about people who helped me. About a "published" paper, my only candidate target is arXiv.org . So, do not dream about being published in a famous journal. My main goal is fun.
As examples, look at:
http://tony.reix.free.fr/Mersenne/GeneralizedPellNumbers.pdf" : Zhi-Wei SUN helped me.
http://tony.reix.free.fr/Mersenne/Mersenne8x3qy.pdf" : an anonymous reviewer provided a nice proof.
http://tony.reix.free.fr/Mersenne/LoopsUnderLLTmodMersennePrime.pdf" : 2 guys helped me, including ZetaX from this forum.
Regards,
Tony
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lucas numbers

T.Rex said:
Can you prove:

C_{2^n}^{+} \equiv -2 \pmod{F_n} \ \Longleftrightarrow \ F_n=2^{2^n}+1 \text{ is prime.}.

T.
I think I have an idea.
It appears that we have: L^m(i) = V_{2^m}(1,-1), where i is the square root of -1, m is greater than 1, and V_n(1,-1) is a Lucas number defined by: V_0=2 , V_1=1, V_{n+1}=V_n+V_{n-1}. Look at "The Little Book of BIGGER primes" by Paulo Ribenboim, 2nd edition, page 59.
So, what I called LLT numbers are: C_m^+ = \frac{V_{2^m}-1}{2}.
I did not know this relationship.
Now, in order to prove the theorem, I think I could use either the method used by Lehmer or the one used by Ribenboim. I'll see.
Any more ideas ?
Regards,
Tony
 
Last edited:
  • #10
There's a U sequence too, I think. There's a nice formula not just for increasing the indices by 1, but also for doubling the indices.
 
  • #11
Hurkyl said:
... but also for doubling the indices.
Yes: V_{2n}=V_n^2-2Q^n.
When n is even and Q=-1 or 1, we have: V_{2^n}=V_{2^{n-1}}^2-2 which is the LLT basic formula.
Have I found something useful or is it simply another way to look at an old result ? (Probably second one !)
T.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
IIRC, there's a more general one. If you know U_m, U_{m+1}, V_m, V_{m+1}, you can leap directly to U_{2m}, U_{2m+1}, V_{2m}, V_{2m+1}. I don't remember the details; I just wanted to throw it out there, in case the idea was useful. The U and V sequences have a ton of useful properties!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K