Proof of Euclid's Formula: n Must Be Prime

  • Thread starter Thread starter imprank6
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
Click For Summary
In the discussion on proving that in Euclid's formula for perfect numbers, n must be prime, participants explore various approaches to the proof. One suggested method involves assuming n is composite and demonstrating that this leads to a contradiction regarding the primality of 2^n - 1. Another approach considers the implications of Fermat's Little Theorem in relation to prime divisors of n. The conversation highlights the complexity of the proof and the need for clarity on whether the goal is to show that n is relatively prime to 2^n - 1 or to establish that if 2^n - 1 is prime, then n must also be prime. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the mathematical intricacies involved in the proof of Euclid's formula.
imprank6
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Proof and show that in Euclid's formula for perfect numbers, n must be prime.



Homework Equations



(2^(n-1))((2^n)-1))

The Attempt at a Solution



I can show it by plugging in the number but I cannot prove it...any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try showing that if 2n-1 is prime, then n is prime. You can do this by assuming it is composite (n=ab), and finding a divisor of 2n-1 (namely 2a-1)
 
Sounds like you are in History of Mathematics...I'm trying to figure this problem out (among many others)..to bad the hint in the back of the book says the same thing as what was posted previously..and that doesn't help
 
I am not sure whether the problem you have is to show that n does not divide 2^n-1 ( that is they are relatively prime) or to show that if 2^n-1 is prime than n is prime ( in which case i am not sure that the latter even holds). However, if it is the former here is another approach to this problem: Suppose the contrary: that is let 2^n-1 be a prime number and n a number not relatively prime to it. Now, let p_1 be a prime divisor of n, and let k be the smallest positive integer for which p_1 divides 2^k-1. Now from Fermat's little theorem we would get that p_1 is also a factor of 2^{p_1-1}-1. Hence k\leq p_1-1<p_1.

Now your task is to prove that q divides n. Assume the contrary, by expressing n=hq+r.
I will stop here before i get in trouble from PF Moderators!

Hope this was helpful.
 
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
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
904