Proof about 2 numbers being relatively prime.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the numbers in the series defined by Fermat numbers, specifically 2^2+1, 2^{2^2}+1, 2^{2^3}+1, etc., are relatively prime. Participants suggest examining the differences between these numbers and utilizing modular arithmetic, particularly mod 2, to establish their relative primality. The proof hinges on the relationship between Fermat numbers, defined as F(n) = 2^(2^n) + 1, and demonstrating the recursion relation F(n) = F(n-1)F(n-2)...F(1)F(0) + 2. This approach confirms the infinite nature of primes derived from these numbers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fermat numbers and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of modular arithmetic, specifically mod 2
  • Familiarity with concepts of relative primality
  • Experience with mathematical proofs and recursion relations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of Fermat numbers and their applications in number theory
  • Study the concept of relative primality in greater depth
  • Learn about modular arithmetic and its role in number theory proofs
  • Explore recursion relations and their significance in mathematical proofs
USEFUL FOR

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

cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Prove that their are an infinite amount of primes by observing that in the series
2^2+1, 2^{2^2}+1,2^{2^3}+1,2^{2^4}+1,...
every 2 numbers are relatively prime.

The Attempt at a Solution


I was going to take 2 of the numbers in the series and look at their difference because if they have common factors then it should divide their difference, but then I am not sure how this will work.
or maybe I should look at these numbers mod2 or something, well I guess mod2 these all equal 1.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cragar said:
I was going to take 2 of the numbers in the series and look at their difference
Seems a good start. Suppose p divides each, so it divide the difference. Can you then discard a factor of the difference and deduce that p divides the remaining factor?
 
If I look at 2^4+1-(2^2+1)=2^4-2^2=2^2(2^2-1) we know that
2^2+1 and 2^2-1 are relatively prime because they are an odd number separated by a power of 2. But then I was trying to generalize this proof. where we have
2^x+1,2^y+1 x<y then 2^y+1-2^x-1=2^x(2^{y-x}-1 I guess I could make a similar argument that 2^{y-x}-1 and 2^x+1 are relatively prime.
 
cragar said:
2^y+1-2^x-1=2^x(2^{y-x}-1 I guess I could make a similar argument that 2^{y-x}-1 and 2^x+1 are relatively prime.
I don't think that argument will work.
As I said, suppose p divides 22x+1 and 22y+1, so it follows that p divides 22y-2x-1. Can you now construct more numbers it must divide?
 
These numbers are called Fermat numbers. Define F(n)=2^(2^n)+1. Then if you can show the recursion relation F(n)=F(n-1)F(n-2)...F(1)F(0)+2, you are pretty much home free. Try concentrating on proving that. That's the usual route. Start by writing down the most obvious relation between F(n) and F(n-1) that you can think of.
 
Last edited:
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K