sachinism
- 66
- 0
is (2^{58}+1)/5 a prime number or a composite number
trust me this one has got an interesting solution
trust me this one has got an interesting solution
The discussion centers around whether the expression (2^58 + 1)/5 is a prime or composite number. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and reasoning related to this question, including divisibility, factorization, and properties of numbers.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether (2^58 + 1)/5 is prime or composite, with multiple competing views and ongoing debate about the reasoning and methods used.
Some arguments rely on assumptions about divisibility and properties of numbers that may not be universally accepted or proven within the discussion. There are also unresolved mathematical steps and conditions that affect the conclusions drawn.
sachinism said:is (2^{58}+1)/5 a prime number or a composite number
trust me this one has got an interesting solution
sachinism said:is (2^{58}+1)/5 a prime number or a composite number
trust me this one has got an interesting solution
Okay, so far.law&theorem said:If the result is fraction, it will make nonsense to discuss this question.
So, the result must be integral number.
Then, if (2^{58}+1) can be divided exactly by 5, the units of (2^{58}+1) must be 0 or 5. Science 2^{58} is even number, (2^{58}+1) must be odd number.
So, the units of (2^{58}+1) must be 5.
Then assume (2^{58}+1)=x+5, the units of x must be 0.
And units of x/5 must be 2, namely x can be divided exactly by 5.
You lost me at that step. Also, are you saying (2^{58}+1)/5 is divisible by 3?So, (x+1)/5 can be divided exactly by 3.
So ,the question solved, the (2^{58}+1)/5 is a composite number.
Okay so far.law&theorem said:And this question can be solved in this way:
(2^{58}+1)=(4^{29}+1)=([5-1]^{29}+1)=C(29,0)*5^29*(-1)^0+C(29,1)*5^28*(-1)^1+C(29,2)*5^27*(-1)^2+……+C(29,29)*5^0*(-1)^29+1;
C(29,29)*5^0*(-1)^29=-1, so C(29,29)*5^0*(-1)^29+1=0.
And the other items can all be divided exactly by 5,
And again, I don't see how you arrived at that. What you have proved is that (2^{58}+1) is composite (specifically that it is divisible by 5)....and (2^{58}+1)/5 is a composite number.
Gokul43201 said:Okay, so far.
You lost me at that step. Also, are you saying (2^{58}+1)/5 is divisible by 3?
Okay so far.
And again, I don't see how you arrived at that. What you have proved is that (2^{58}+1) is composite (specifically that it is divisible by 5).
How do you arrive at that?law&theorem said:That means x+5 can be divide exactly by 15,
See phyzguy's post. It is not divisible by 3.... so (x+5)/5 can be divided exactly by 3.
Not true for n = 1hamster143 said:Here's the solution (I actually engineered it backwards, knowing the prime factors):
[tex]2^{58}+1 = 2^{58} + 2*2^{29} + 1 - 2^{30} = (2^{29}+1)^2 - 2^{30} = (2^{29}-2^{15}+1)(2^{29}+2^{15}+1)[/tex]
More generally, it follows that all [itex]2^{4n+2}+1[/itex] are composite.
At the same time, as law&theorem showed, [itex]5|2^{58}+1[/itex], which is a special case of the fact that [itex]5|2^{2(2n+1)}+1[/itex], which, in turn, is a special case of the fact that [itex]a^k+1|a^{k(2n+1)}+1[/itex].
So we can conclude that all [itex](2^{4n+2}+1)/5[/itex] are composite.