Number Theory: Fermat Numbers coprime => infinite # primes

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the properties of Fermat numbers, defined as F_n = 2^{2^n} + 1. It is established that F_n - 2 equals the product of all previous Fermat numbers, F_0F_1...F_{n-1}, using induction and the identity a^2 - b^2 = (a - b)(a + b). The participants conclude that any two distinct Fermat numbers are coprime, which leads to the implication of the infinitude of primes, referencing Euclid's proof and the properties of divisors of Fermat numbers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fermat numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction
  • Knowledge of Euclid's algorithm for GCD
  • Basic number theory concepts, including prime numbers and divisibility
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Fermat numbers in depth
  • Learn about mathematical induction techniques
  • Explore Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes
  • Investigate the implications of GCD in number theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of number theory, and anyone interested in the properties of prime numbers and Fermat numbers.

mattmns
Messages
1,121
Reaction score
5
Here is the question from our book:

------
Let F_n = 2^{2^n} + 1 be the nth Fermat numbers. Use the identity a^2-b^2 = (a-b)(a+b) to show that F_n - 2 = F_0F_1\cdots F_{n-1}.

Conclude that (F_n,F_m)=1 \ \forall \ n \neq m. Show that this implies the infinitude of the primes.
-------

The first part is easily done by induction, and using 2^{2^n}=(2^{2_{n-1}})^2.

It is the second, and third part that I am having trouble with.

I just got an idea for the second. It is easy to show that if d\mid F_n = 2^{2^n}+1 and d\mid F_m = 2^{2^m}+1 Then we can easily show that d is not even (subtract the two, and we get that d divides an even number, and from the previous things we know d divides an odd number, so d cannot be even.)

Now we can use what we proved in the first part (assume, wlog, n>m) F_n = (F_m+2)F_mF_{m+1}\cdots F_{n-1} + 2

d\mid F_m and d\mid F_n so with a little manipulation and properties we can getd\mid 2 and so d=1 or d=2, but d is not even so d=1 (ignoring negative divisors as we are looking at the greatest anyway).

Kind of ugly, but it seems correct.

Any ideas of a more slick proof, or any insight into the problem?

Also, any ideas about how I can get that this implies the infinitude of the primes? (standard proof by contradiction? Let p_1,...p_r, be the list of all Fermat primes. Consider some clever number N, and break up into prime decomp? Break into cases?)

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are well on your way to proving that if d divides F_n then it does not divide F_m for m<n. Which is, I think, what you have been trying to say. As for the infinitude of primes, remember Euclid's proof? Hint: either F_n is prime or F_n has a divisor d...
 
Your trying to solve a solved problem.
There is a stronger theorem which says:
Fermat's numbers are whole prime to each other.
Which mean, there is no "d" divisor for two different fermat numbers.
 
To compute the GCD, you can use the fact that:

GCD(r, s) = GCD(r, s Mod r)

which is easy to prove and is the basis of Euclid's algorithm for the GCD.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
976
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K