Prove or disprove whether number is prime using theorem listed in post

  • Thread starter Thread starter lostNfound
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Theorem
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the primality of Mersenne numbers, specifically M(13)=2047 and M(23)=8388607, using a theorem related to their divisors. The theorem states that if Mp=2^p-1 is not prime, every divisor takes the form 2*c*p+1, where c is a nonnegative integer. To check if 2047 is prime, it is suggested to only test specific primes less than its square root, rather than all primes below that threshold. This approach simplifies the process of verifying primality for larger Mersenne numbers like M(23). The participants express gratitude for the clarification on how to apply the theorem effectively.
lostNfound
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
So the problem has to deal with Mersenne numbers 2^p-1 where p is a odd prime, and Mp may or may not end up being prime.

The theorem given is:
If p is an odd prime, but Mp=2^p-1 is not a Mersenne prime, then every divisor of the Mersenne number 2^p-1 is of the form 2*c*p+1 where c is a nonnegative integer.

Assuming this theorem is true, I need to somehow use it to determine whether M(13)=2^11-1=2047 and M(23)=2^23-1=8388607 are prime.

I know it's supposed to start with something like "If 2047 is not prime, then we know it must have prime factor <=sqrt(2047) which is about 45.24...but I am unsure of where to go from there.

Help would be awesome!

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take the first one, M(13)=2047. To check if that's prime you'd ordinarily have to check all of the primes less than 45.24 to see if any divide it. But the theorem tells you you don't have to check all of them. Which ones do you have to check? In the case of M(23) there's a lot more to check, but you can hope that one of the smaller ones will work.
 
That helps a lot. I'm not sure why I didn't look at it that way before but now I know what was meant by the question. Thanks! I'll let you know if for some reason I get stuck again.
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K