Proving that (2^n) - 1 is Not Prime for Perfect Squares

  • Thread starter Thread starter mae
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Squares
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that if \( n \) is a perfect square, then \( (2^n) - 1 \) is not prime. Participants are exploring the implications of perfect squares in the context of number theory, particularly focusing on the properties of numbers derived from powers of two.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants attempt to analyze specific cases of \( 2^n - 1 \) for perfect squares, questioning how the structure of perfect squares influences primality. Some explore factorization techniques and consider the use of induction as a potential method for proving the statement.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various approaches being considered, including direct evaluation of specific perfect squares and the contrapositive method. Some participants express frustration with their progress, while others suggest alternative perspectives on the problem.

Contextual Notes

There is an acknowledgment of the challenge posed by the requirement to prove the statement for all perfect squares, and some participants mention constraints related to their understanding of number theory.

mae
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Prove that if n is a perfect square, then (2^n) -1 is not prime.

All I can get is that 2^n is some even number. I can't work in the perfect square part.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, you could try a couple and see ...
2^4-1=15=3*5
2^9-1=511=7*73
2^16-1=323767=7*31*151

You could at least write the expression as:
2^{k \times k}-1

There's an easy answer when k is even.
 
Unfortunately I have to prove it for every perfect square, and there are a lot of them.

I feel like I've tried everything. The last thing I tried was contrapositive : If (2^n)-1 is prime, then n is not a perfect square. No dice... at least for me.
 
You could write it as (2^k)^k - 1. Can you think of a way to factorize it now?

By the way, primes of the form 2^n - 1 are called Mersenne primes. They're relatively well-known, and have many unsolved problems associated to them. For example, are there infinitely many Mersenne primes?
 
*sigh* honestly I can't think of a way to factor it =(

I've been up all night and I can't really think straight anymore. I'm not sure that would help anyway though.
 
Just some thoughts, btw I know zero number theory.

n = k^2
It is true for k=1, k=2. Assume it is true for some k. So 2^(k^2)-1 is not prime
For the next number k+1, n = k^2 + 2k +1, we have:

2^n - 1= 2^(k^2 + 2k +1) - 1 = 2^(k^2) + 2^(2k) + 1 = 2^n -1 + 2^(2k) +2

Er, then, I don't know what.
 
Good ol' induction... I didn't try that before. But I took what you started and didn't really end up anywhere... just like everything else I've tried =( Thanks for the thought though.
 
And I apologize for not showing my work, but most (nearly all) of it has been erased at this point, and it all was deadends. Thanks for your help guys. I'll let you know if/when I get an answer. Or you could put me at peace before that.
 
Holy crap, I think I just got it.

Edit: I did not.


This is for contrapositive, which seems more promising.
I have 2^n -1 = p (some prime)
so... 2^n = p+1 (some even)
now, if only log[2](p+1) was something easy and neat.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
x-1=(x-1)(1)
x^2-1=(x-1)(x+1)
x^3-1=(x-1)(x^2+x+1)
x^4-1=(x-1)(x^3+x^2+x+1)
...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K