B Possible factor(s) of 2^(12n+9)+1

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Janosh89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    composite
Janosh89
Messages
61
Reaction score
19
TL;DR Summary
If the expression 2 x (12n+9) +1 has no prime factors of the form
4k+1 where k>0 , then 2^(12n+9)+1 is necessarily divisible by 24n+19.
Is this provable ?
It seems to hold true ..

nfactor(s) of (24n+19)(24n+19) divides 2(12n+9)+1 ?
019YES
143YES
267YES
37, 13NO
423, 5NO
5139YES
6163YES
711, 17NO
8211YES
947, 5 NO
107, 37NO
11283YES
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I have no idea on solution but rewrited the problem introducing
N=4n+3
24n+19= 6N+1
2^{12n+9}+1=8^{N}+1
 
  • Like
Likes Janosh89
24n+19 is of the form 4k+3, so it must have an odd number of prime factors of the form 4k+3. In particular, if it does not have a prime factor of the form 4k+1 it must have an odd number of prime factors.

n=38 is the first time that we get three prime factors of the form 4k+3 as 2*(12*38+9) +1 = 72*19.
212*38+9+1 is not divisible by 2*(12*38+9)+1, so we have a counterexample.

Does this pattern only apply if 2*(12*n+9) +1 is a prime?
 
  • Like
Likes Janosh89
I noticed that all my examples where 2*(12*n+9)+1 divides 2(12n+9)+1 were
prime divisors. I will endeavor to find further counterexamples. Thanks .
 
I should have noticed :-
for n=38

2(12*38+9)+1 is divisible by 7*19 . Does the pattern hold for the distinct
prime factors , P4k+3 , of 2*(12n +9)+1 ?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
965
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top