Show that for each a < b a, b ∈ N we have the following

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around properties of the expressions involving powers of 3, specifically examining divisibility conditions for natural numbers a and b where a < b. The participants are analyzing two statements regarding divisibility and exploring their implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the first statement regarding divisibility of 3^(2^a) + 1 and 3^(2^b) - 1, with one participant attempting to use induction to prove it. Questions arise about the correctness of the second statement, with examples provided that challenge its validity.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants questioning the accuracy of the second condition and exploring the implications of their findings. Some have provided counterexamples that suggest a need for clarification in the problem statement.

Contextual Notes

There appears to be confusion regarding the second condition, as one participant presents a counterexample that contradicts the claim. This indicates potential issues with the assumptions or definitions in the problem statement.

coolusername
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Missing template due to originally being posted in different forum.
1) 3^(2^a) + 1 divides 3^(2^b) -1

2) If d > 2, d ∈ N, then d does not divide both 3^(2^a) + 1 and 3^(2^b) -1

Attempt:

Set b = s+a for s ∈ N

m = 3^(2^a). Then 3^(2^b) - 1 = 3^[(2^a)(2^s)]-1 = m^(2^s) -1

Thus, m+1 and m-1 divides m^(2^s) -1 by induction.

If s = 1, then m^(2^s) -1 = m^2 - 1 = (m+1)(m-1)

For s>= 1, m^(2^s) = (m^(2^(s-1))+1)(m^(2^(s-1))-1). The induction hypothesis approves.

I'm confused on how to prove with the second condition.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure the second problem statement is correct?
3^(2^1)+1 = 10, 3^(2^2)-1 = 80.
d=5 divides both 10 and 80.
 
Yes. This is why it was confusing to me.

I tried,

d = m+1>2 which shows that it can divide both m+1 and m^(2^(s-1)) -1.
 
There is something missing in the problem statement then.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K