Proving Prime Divisibility of 2^(2^n)+1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Divisibility Prime
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that if a prime \( p \) divides \( 2^{2^n} + 1 \), then \( p \) can be expressed in the form \( 2^{n+1}k + 1 \) for some integer \( k \). The problem is situated within number theory, particularly focusing on properties of prime numbers and divisibility.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants suggest using induction as a potential method, while others express skepticism about this approach. There are discussions about the form of divisors and suggestions to explore long division and binary representations. Some participants reference historical context related to Fermat and Mersenne numbers, indicating a connection to known mathematical conjectures and results.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various participants exploring different lines of reasoning. Some have provided insights into group theory and its relevance to the problem, while others question the validity of these approaches. There is no explicit consensus on a method, but several productive ideas and connections have been shared.

Contextual Notes

Participants note a lack of clarity regarding certain assumptions, such as the nature of \( k \) and the applicability of group theory. There is also mention of historical conjectures that may influence the understanding of the problem.

Dragonfall
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement



Prove that if a prime [tex]p|2^{2^n}+1[/tex] then [tex]p=2^{n+1}k+1[/tex] for some k.

Don't know how. I'm guessing by induction, perhaps?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone? I have no idea how to proceed.
 
Yep, induction. Prove the first statement is true for n, then assume true for n=k+1.
 
is k an integer?
 
I don't see how this could be done by induction.
 
The problem seems interesting... however, I am also clueless about how to do this problem...

one suggestion is to assume all divisor in the form of:
[tex]2^{n+1}k+m[/tex]

then prove m is one using long division dividing:
[tex]x^{2^n}+1[/tex]
by
[tex]x^{n+1}k+m[/tex]

where x=2...

or it may help to view things in binary.
 
I thought I saw this once somewhere, oops! It was about Mersenne Numbers.

Anyway, Euler was the first person to prove the form of the factors. Fermat had conjectured, 1650, that his "Fermat Number" was always prime for all values, but Euler show differently: N=5 gives: 4,294,967,297 = 641x6700417. In fact beside the early cases N=0 to N=4, no one has found anymore "Fermat Primes."

This is about the only know case where Fermat was wrong about a conjecture, but, perhaps, those thinking Fermat actually solved his "own Last Theorem," might take note of his failure with the above conjecture.

Actually the problem is not that dissimilar to the Mersenne one. In this case we have 2^(2^n)==-1 Mod q, so that squaring produces 2^(2^(n+1)) ==1 Mod q for some prime divisor q.

To the modulus q, we have q-1 is the complete residue system, and 2^(2^n) is less than q, since it gave the value -1. Therefore 2^(n+1) is a divisor of this system q-1. Thus q=K2^(n+1)+1.

Note: Some of the values I looked at have a much higher power of two, and Lucas showed the value could be raised by 1 to q=2^(n+2)+1.
 
Last edited:
oh, that's brilliant!

correct me if I am wrong:
basically, you show that,
[tex]2^{2^{n+1}}\equiv 1 \pmod {q}[/tex]

since,
[tex]\text{ord}_q(2)|q-1, 2^{n+1}[/tex]edit: mistakes. Sorry, but I do not understand group theories.. although I do have a little bit knowledge in number theory.

nevermind... I see.
 
Last edited:
The order of the element divides the order of the group. This is called Lagrange's Theorem. The order of the group is q-1. This is also connected with Fermat's Little Theorem: X^(p-1)==1 Mod p, for every element X, but some elements only need a smaller power than p-1, but a divisor of p-1.
 
  • #10
I understand your proof, but it seems like cheating to invoke group theory. Thanks though.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K