 mersenneforum.org > Math Question about a mersenne-number property
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  2011-03-03, 23:02 #1 sascha77   Jan 2010 germany 2·13 Posts Question about a mersenne-number property I discovered a nice property about mersenne numbers. When is not prime then this is true only for the two trivial cases: 1.) 2.) If there exist an for : the above congruence is also true. This is the case when choosing and , so that . - For the other combinations of the variable and the above congruence is NEVER true. I do not really know if I am right with this. Up til now i haven't found an counterexample. My question is: Can this conjecture be true or is this just an example for the 'laws of small numbers' ?   2011-03-03, 23:32   #2
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by sascha77 I discovered a nice property about mersenne numbers. When is not prime then this is true only for the two trivial cases: 1.) 2.) If there exist an for : the above congruence is also true. This is the case when choosing and , so that . - For the other combinations of the variable and the above congruence is NEVER true. I do not really know if I am right with this. Up til now i haven't found an counterexample. My question is: Can this conjecture be true or is this just an example for the 'laws of small numbers' ?
well if I did the math correct the only other time it could be true is a= b-1 so can you come up with the answer from that ?, okay never mind messed up my math.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2011-03-03 at 23:41   2011-03-03, 23:45   #3
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by sascha77 I discovered a nice property about mersenne numbers. When is not prime then this is true only for the two trivial cases: 1.) 2.) If there exist an for : the above congruence is also true. This is the case when choosing and , so that . - For the other combinations of the variable and the above congruence is NEVER true. I do not really know if I am right with this. Up til now i haven't found an counterexample. My question is: Can this conjecture be true or is this just an example for the 'laws of small numbers' ?
This piece of stupidity is another example of what I say when I tell people
that they should not go near number theory until they have mastered
high school mathematics.

Hint: Binomial Theorem.

Consider (x + y)^n mod n for arbitrary x,y \in N and n prime.   2011-03-03, 23:52 #4 science_man_88   "Forget I exist" Jul 2009 Dumbassville 838410 Posts well 2^x - 2^(x-z) = (2^z-1)*2^(x-z) since I redid the math. From the fact that (2^y)/(2^a) = 2^(y-a) it's impossible to add up to a multiplier (2^z-1) with only one other power of 2 other than 2^(x-z) except when z == 1. Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2011-03-04 at 00:52   2011-03-04, 00:02 #5 ixfd64 Bemusing Prompter   "Danny" Dec 2002 California 11×13×17 Posts Inb4miscmaththreads.   2011-03-04, 01:03   #6
sascha77

Jan 2010
germany

2·13 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by science_man_88 well 2^x - 2^(x-z) = (2^z-1)*2^(x-z) since I redid the math. From the fact that (2^y)/(2^a) = 2^(y-a) it's impossible to add up to a multiplier (2^z-1) with only one other power of 2 other than 2^(x-z) except when z == 1.

I think you did really a mistake.    2011-03-04, 01:24   #7
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by sascha77 I think you did really a mistake. according to your math you can reconvert it to 2^(x-z)*(2^z-1) which means unless you say the last one is a error my math holds up to yours.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2011-03-04 at 01:25   2011-03-04, 02:44   #8
sascha77

Jan 2010
germany

1A16 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman This piece of stupidity is another example of what I say when I tell people that they should not go near number theory until they have mastered high school mathematics. Hint: Binomial Theorem. Consider (x + y)^n mod n for arbitrary x,y \in N and n prime.

I think you did not read carefully what i wrote or
my english grammar was too bad.

Let me show you what I did and what i meant:

I played with the Lemma :

if and the congruent is correct then n is prime.
And shure I know that I dont may put a number to X.
X is a free variable.

For example:

-> 5 is prime

But what I did was to play a little around with this Lemma.
So I inserted the number 2 to the variables X and a.

I know that for every Mersenne Prime n (n=(2^p)-1, n is prime)
this is always true:

(This is because the "Kleine Fermatsche Satz".)

"Kleine Fermatsche Satz" : For all and all true:

If n is prime then
( is the Eulers totient function )

Therefore if is prime when for all and all the following congruation is always correct:

...And if you have :

you get this:

But if n is not prime, when it can be that for some x this is also true.

So what I did is that I looked for numbers x where the congruation

is NEVER POSSIBLE when n is NOT PRIME.

So I found a pattern. And this was my conjecture.

Again:

Let and n is not Prime.

If now and then the

above congruation is ALWAYS false.

This means that for these this :

is NEVER true when n=2^p-1 is not prime !   2011-03-04, 03:40 #9 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502   """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 100111111110012 Posts Sascha, Bob Silverman is an expert. He likely did not mis-read what you wrote. If he suggests that you look into some area of education, do it. I think that his idea of High School math is through Math Analysis and Calculus I & II. He is often blunt, don't be scared by him though. I have not looked into your suggestion. My math skills have severely atrophied since I left school. semi-random image attached. Attached Thumbnails   2011-03-04, 16:01   #10
mart_r

Dec 2008
you know...around...

2×353 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by sascha77 Let and n is not Prime. If now and then the above congruation is ALWAYS false. This means that for these this : is NEVER true when n=2^p-1 is not prime !
Well, (211+21)2046 1 (mod 2047).
a-b=10 11 (mod 2047)   2011-03-04, 16:08   #11
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by sascha77 This means that for these this : is NEVER true when n=2^p-1 is not prime !
You just changed your original statement.

Your original statement was that x^n = x is not true when n = 2^p-1
is composite. Here x = 2^a + 2^b for a!= b

This is different from x^{n-1} = 1 is not true when n = 2^p-1 is
composite.   Thread Tools Show Printable Version Email this Page Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post aketilander Operazione Doppi Mersennes 1 2012-11-09 21:16 Thiele Math 18 2010-05-23 05:35 kurtulmehtap Math 12 2010-05-03 14:02 arithmeticae Lounge 5 2008-10-27 06:15 T.Rex Math 12 2005-09-12 07:56

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:50.

Wed Jan 19 04:50:02 UTC 2022 up 179 days, 23:19, 0 users, load averages: 1.26, 1.24, 1.19