 mersenneforum.org Mersenne Prime Sequence
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  2012-01-23, 19:49   #12
Stan

Dec 2011

22·32 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by ccorn Well then: 5*phi(5) | phi(66) and 5 | (66-1), but 25 does not divide 66.
Once again you are correct, but I have not been sufficiently explicit since all the primes in the sequence (2^ni)-1; 0 < i < 5, are congruent to 3 mod.4
So I require p*phi(p) | phi(m) and p*phi(p) | (m - 1) where p is a prime congruent to 3 mod.4 and m = 2^p - 1.

Last fiddled with by Stan on 2012-01-23 at 20:33   2012-01-23, 20:08   #13
ccorn

Apr 2010

5×31 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by Stan Once again you are correct, but I have not been sufficiently explicit since all the primes in the sequence (2^ni)-1; 0 < i < 5, are congruent to 3 mod.4 So I require p*phi(p) | phi(m) and p | (m - 1) where p is a prime congruent to 3 mod.4 and m = 2^p - 1.
If you require p | (m - 1), you cannot conclude p^2 | m anyway...

P.S.: You have presented no reasoning why from such phi(a) | phi(b) you could possibly conclude a | b. In fact, many coprime numbers share the same totient function value, so you cannot easily carry divisibiliy properties across applications of the totient function. With very strong conditions on a or b this might be possible (e. g. if a and b are increasing powers of 2 or 6), but you would still need to provide a proof why such a rather singular case should happen.

P.P.S.: This is the second of the two alleged non sequiturs, the first one deserves attention too.

Last fiddled with by ccorn on 2012-01-23 at 20:38   2012-01-23, 20:45   #14
Stan

Dec 2011

1001002 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by ccorn If you require p | (m - 1), you cannot conclude p^2 | m anyway... P.S.: You have presented no reasoning why from such phi(a) | phi(b) you could possibly conclude a | b. In fact, many coprime numbers share the same totient function value, so you cannot easily carry divisibiliy properties across applications of the totient function. With very strong conditions on a or b this might be possible (e. g. if a and b are increasing powers of 2 or 6), but you would still need to provide a proof why such a rather singular case should happen.
I take it that you have read the PDF I asked to be checked for errors.
I do not assume phi(a) | phi(b) implies a | b but I have discovered a situation where p*phi(p) | phi(m) and p*phi(p) | (m-1) from which I propose that m is a prime.   2012-01-23, 21:20   #15
ccorn

Apr 2010

5·31 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by Stan I take it that you have read the PDF I asked to be checked for errors. I do not assume phi(a) | phi(b) implies a | b but I have discovered a situation where p*phi(p) | phi(m) and p*phi(p) | (m-1) from which I propose that m is a prime.
Aha. For what reason? For the time being, take p = 5, m=341 as a counterexample. There may well be a large gcd(phi(m),m-1).
Also, consider Batalov's second counterexample.   2012-01-23, 23:34   #16
Stan

Dec 2011

448 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by ccorn Aha. For what reason? For the time being, take p = 5, m=341 as a counterexample. There may well be a large gcd(phi(m),m-1). Also, consider Batalov's second counterexample.
So I require p*phi(p) | phi(m) and p*phi(p) | (m - 1) where p is a prime congruent to 3 mod.4 and m = 2^p - 1. In fact, p = 2^(2^q - 1) - 1
where q is a prime of the same form.
In Batalov's second counterexample, 19 is not 2^(a prime) - 1.   2012-01-23, 23:53   #17
Batalov

"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

19·232 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by Stan 19 is not 2^(a prime) - 1.
Is your starting element 2 a 2^(a prime) - 1?   2012-01-24, 07:22   #18
ccorn

Apr 2010

5·31 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by Stan So I require p*phi(p) | phi(m) and p*phi(p) | (m - 1) where p is a prime congruent to 3 mod.4 and m = 2^p - 1. In fact, p = 2^(2^q - 1) - 1 where q is a prime of the same form. In Batalov's second counterexample, 19 is not 2^(a prime) - 1.
Where is the logical link (the reasoning) between all those requirements and your desired conclusion?

The current state, as I perceive it, is that you list a number of true properties (mostly laid down in propositions 1 and 2) and then claim what you like.

For example, you essentially claim that gcd(phi(m),m-1) = m-1 (where m=n5) but you provide only a divisor of the gcd. (And only a divisor of that divisor is actually granted, due to the first non sequitur.) You will agree that this is not a proof.   2012-01-24, 14:15   #19
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS

2·3·23·61 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by Stan So I require p*phi(p) | phi(m) and p*phi(p) | (m - 1) where p is a prime congruent to 3 mod.4 and m = 2^p - 1. In fact, p = 2^(2^q - 1) - 1 where q is a prime of the same form. In Batalov's second counterexample, 19 is not 2^(a prime) - 1.
2^(2^q-1)-1 means p is a double Mersenne if m=2^p-1 then you are talking about triple Mersennes ?

2^3-1 = 2^(2^2-1)-1
2^7-1=2^(2^3-1)-1 = 2^(2^(2^2-1)-1)-1

so we can assume that you speak of all the terms > M7=MM3=MMM2 correct ?

of course M127=MM7=MMM3=MMMM2

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2012-01-24 at 14:29   2012-01-24, 14:46   #20
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS

2·3·23·61 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by science_man_88 2^(2^q-1)-1 means p is a double Mersenne if m=2^p-1 then you are talking about triple Mersennes ? 2^3-1 = 2^(2^2-1)-1 2^7-1=2^(2^3-1)-1 = 2^(2^(2^2-1)-1)-1 so we can assume that you speak of all the terms > M7=MM3=MMM2 correct ? of course M127=MM7=MMM3=MMMM2
oh and how could I forget , say p= 3 mod 4 2*p+1 = (3*2+1) mod 4 = 7 mod 4 = 3 mod 4 so every mersenne >=3 works out as a possible p.   2012-01-30, 20:03 #21 Stan   Dec 2011 22·32 Posts Carmichael Numbers Is it true that all Carmichael numbers are congruent to 1 modulo 4?   2012-01-30, 20:30   #22
R.D. Silverman

"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston

11101010100102 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by Stan Is it true that all Carmichael numbers are congruent to 1 modulo 4?
Don't be lazy.

One might ask: what motivates this question? do you have some reason to
suspect that it is true?   Thread Tools Show Printable Version Email this Page Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post carpetpool Miscellaneous Math 1 2017-03-23 23:42 TheMawn Miscellaneous Math 1 2014-03-27 07:09 davar55 Puzzles 16 2009-07-02 19:58 mfgoode Math 58 2005-07-04 21:48 Orgasmic Troll Math 10 2003-10-03 15:45

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:12.

Fri Jan 27 17:12:15 UTC 2023 up 162 days, 14:40, 0 users, load averages: 1.91, 1.33, 1.18