Fermat Number Proof: Relatively Prime

  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

All Fermat numbers are relatively prime, as established through a proof that examines their differences and common factors. The proof demonstrates that if Fermat numbers share a common factor, it must divide their difference, leading to a contradiction since the factors must be integers. A more efficient proof utilizes the property that the product of the first n Fermat numbers plus 2 equals the next Fermat number, but this requires additional groundwork. The discussion emphasizes the importance of ensuring all factors are integers in mathematical proofs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fermat numbers and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of number theory, particularly prime factorization
  • Familiarity with mathematical proofs and contradiction techniques
  • Ability to manipulate exponential expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Fermat numbers, specifically the relationship between consecutive Fermat numbers
  • Learn about mathematical proofs by contradiction in number theory
  • Explore integer factorization techniques and their applications in proofs
  • Investigate the implications of Fermat's Last Theorem on related number theory concepts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of number theory, and anyone interested in the properties of Fermat numbers and their applications in proofs.

cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Show that all fermat numbers are relatively prime.

The Attempt at a Solution


If they share common factors then it should divide their difference so I look at
n>x
(2^{2^n}+1)-(2^{2^x}+1)=2^{2^x}(2^{2^n-2^x}-1)
Now since fermat numbers are odd their factors will have to be contained in
(2^{2^n-2^x}-1) Now if they share common factors then it should divide
(2^{2^n-2^x}-1)+(2^{2^n}+1)= (2^{2^n-2^x}+2^{2^n})=2^{2^n}(2^{-2^x}+1)
Since fermat numbers are odd their factors must divide into
(2^{-2^x}+1) but this is not an integer so this contradicts our assumption that it will divide our sum, so fermat numbers are relatively prime.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good. The usual way to prove this is to use one of the properties of Fermat numbers, like ##F_0F_1...F_{n-1} + 2 = F_n##, which gives a much quicker and neater proof. But proving that proposition is more work to begin with. So your way is better from first principles.

This webdocument is quite useful: http://modular.math.washington.edu/edu/2010/414/projects/tsang.pdf

EDIT: Please see Joffan's and Dick's posts. You cannot use this if one (or more) of your factors is not an integer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, no - you can't present that final step as a valid factorization with one of the parts non-integer.
 
Joffan said:
Sorry, no - you can't present that final step as a valid factorization with one of the parts non-integer.

Obviously, let's prove ##2^n-1## is prime. ##2^n-1=2^n(1-2^{-n})##, ##2^n-1## is odd therefore any factor must divide ##1-2^{-n}## which not an integer. QED. That's baloney. ##2^4-1=15## is not prime.
 
Dick said:
Obviously, let's prove ##2^n-1## is prime. ##2^n-1=2^n(1-2^{-n})##, ##2^n-1## is odd therefore any factor must divide ##1-2^{-n}## which not an integer. QED. That's baloney. ##2^4-1=15## is not prime.

A very good point. When making the argument, both factors must be integers.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
972
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K