Can anyone please review/verify this proof of assertion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math100
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Math100
Messages
813
Reaction score
229
Homework Statement
Prove the assertion below:
Any prime of the form 3n+1 is also of the form 6m+1.
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof: Suppose that any prime of the form 3n+1
is also of the form 6m+1.
Note that 2 is the only even prime number
and it is not of the form 3n+1.
This means any prime of the form 3n+1 must be odd.
Since 3n+1 is odd, it follows that 3n must be even.
Then we have n=2m for some integer m.
Thus 3n+1=3(2m)+1
=6m+1.
Therefore, any prime of the form 3n+1 is also of the form 6m+1.

Above is my proof for this assertion. Can anyone please review/verify to see if it's correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is correct. Nothing to complain about.

You can also write it in formulas, after you excluded ##p=2## as you did:
##p=3n-1 \Longrightarrow 3\,|\,(p-1)## and, as you correctly observed, ##p## is odd, so ##p-1## is even, i.e.
##2\,|\,(p-1).## Because ##2## and ##3## are coprime (no common divisor), we get ##2\cdot 3\,|\,(p-1)## which is ##6m=p-1## or ##p=6m+1##.
 
fresh_42 said:
It is correct. Nothing to complain about.

You can also write it in formulas, after you excluded ##p=2## as you did:
##p=3n-1 \Longrightarrow 3\,|\,(p-1)## and, as you correctly observed, ##p## is odd, so ##p-1## is even, i.e.
##2\,|\,(p-1).## Because ##2## and ##3## are coprime (no common divisor), we get ##2\cdot 3\,|\,(p-1)## which is ##6m=p-1## or ##p=6m+1##.
Thank you!
 
Math100 said:
Thank you!
Note that coprime is important here! If two numbers have a common divisor, say ##4## and ##6##, then both divide ##12## but ##4\cdot 6## does not!
 
Your logic is correct, but I would recommend a little rewording.
Math100 said:
Homework Statement:: Prove the assertion below:
Any prime of the form 3n+1 is also of the form 6m+1.
Relevant Equations:: None.

Proof: Suppose that any prime of the form 3n+1
is also of the form 6m+1.
You do not want to "suppose" this. That would be assuming the fact that you want to prove.
You should start with something like:
Proof: Suppose we have a prime, p, of the form p=3n+1.
Math100 said:
Note that 2 is the only even prime number
and it is not of the form 3n+1.
So p is not 2.
Math100 said:
This means any prime of the form 3n+1 must be odd.
Since 3n+1 is odd, it follows that 3n must be even.
Then we have n=2m for some integer m.
Thus 3n+1=3(2m)+1
=6m+1.
p = 6m+1.
##\blacksquare##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Math100 and Orodruin
FactChecker said:
Your logic is correct, but I would recommend a little rewording.

You do not want to "suppose" this. That would be assuming the fact that you want to prove.
You should start with something like:
Proof: Suppose we have a prime, p, of the form p=3n+1.

So p is not 2.

p = 6m+1.
##\blacksquare##
Thank you!
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top