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
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the relationship of LLT numbers, specifically C_m^+, in the context of the Lucas-Lehmer Test (LLT). The participants derive the formula C_m^+ = 2^m ∏_{i=1}^{m-1} C_i^+ - 1 for m > 1, and explore connections to Fermat primes. Key contributions include the identification of C_m^+ as the sum of positive coefficients of the polynomial L^m(x) and the use of induction and Lucas numbers to approach proofs. The conversation highlights the collaborative nature of mathematical exploration and the importance of community input in research.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Lucas-Lehmer Test (LLT)
  • Familiarity with polynomial functions and their coefficients
  • Basic knowledge of number theory, particularly Fermat primes
  • Experience with mathematical induction techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of Lucas numbers and their applications in number theory
  • Study the proofs related to Fermat primes and their significance
  • Explore advanced techniques in mathematical induction for proving number-theoretic conjectures
  • Investigate the relationship between LLT numbers and other sequences, such as Pell numbers
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, number theorists, and students interested in advanced topics in polynomial functions and primality testing, particularly those focusing on the Lucas-Lehmer Test and its implications in number theory.

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