Proof of Euclid's Formula: n Must Be Prime

  • Thread starter Thread starter imprank6
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that in Euclid's formula for perfect numbers, the variable n must be prime. The context involves exploring properties of prime numbers and their relationship to perfect numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various approaches to proving the necessity of n being prime, including examining the implications of 2^n - 1 being prime and the relationship between divisors. Some participants express uncertainty about the problem's requirements and the hints provided in the textbook.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants offering different lines of reasoning and questioning assumptions. Some guidance has been provided regarding potential approaches, but there is no explicit consensus on the best method to prove the statement.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential confusion regarding whether the task is to show that n does not divide 2^n - 1 or to prove that if 2^n - 1 is prime, then n must be prime. Participants are navigating these nuances without a clear resolution.

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 [tex]2^n-1[/tex] be a prime number and n a number not relatively prime to it. Now, let [tex]p_1[/tex] be a prime divisor of n, and let k be the smallest positive integer for which [tex]p_1[/tex] divides [tex]2^k-1[/tex]. Now from Fermat's little theorem we would get that [tex]p_1[/tex] is also a factor of [tex]2^{p_1-1}-1[/tex]. Hence [tex]k\leq p_1-1<p_1.[/tex]

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.
 

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 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K