20131115, 20:22  #23 
Mar 2010
2^{6}·3 Posts 

20131115, 23:08  #24 
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
26717_{8} Posts 
An alternative "proof by dilemma"
It seems he's talking about Euler's famous  and untrustworthy, because it relied on Herr Euler's "computation"  proof that 641 divides F5, thus (allegedly and untrustworthily) 'disproving' Fermat's conjecture that all Fn are prime.
Allow me to present a simplified version of CRGreathouse's post #2 "untrustworthy alternative computeraided proof"  this one can more easily be done by hand, as it breaks things down into a "powering via repeated doubling and addition of 1 to result" step (Lemma 1) and a "multiplication of one number by another" step (Lemma 2). The mathematically fancypantsy around here may have heard of "proof by contradiction" (as in "you're wrong, thus I'm right.") ... the structure of my proof below is in the form of 2 lemmas  not to be confused with those furry little critters who famously and counterfactually have a reputation for mass cliffdiving (and which are close relatives of gerbils, as it happens)  thus "proof by dilemma", as it were. I hope that said decomposition will make it easier for the mathematical community to organize the extensive independent doublechecking effort needed to satisfy the OP of the validity of the (allegedly and untrustworthy) alternative proof. Lemma 1: Let n = 2^7. Then n = 128, and F7 := 2^n+1 = 340282366920938463463374607431768211457. Lemma 2: F7 = 59649589127497217 x 5704689200685129054721 . QED Is that at all understandable? Perhaps we should organize a special conference  is it too late to propose this as a lastminute addon to this year's WCNTC at Asilomar? Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 20131116 at 00:06 
20131115, 23:21  #25  
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA
2^{5}×3×19 Posts 
I think he's talking about this paragraph from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat_numbers:
Quote:


20131115, 23:31  #26  
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
11×19×47 Posts 
Quote:
Similarly, here's a "proof", that 9=3*3. "Proof": 3*3=(1+2)^2=1^2+2*1*2+2^2=9. Alleged added value of the "proof": it operates only with numbers no more than 2. While direct multiplication deals with larger numbers (i.e. 3). 

20131116, 00:49  #27 
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
3^{2}×1,303 Posts 
I have through exhaustive labors succeeded in verifying part 2 of my proof by dilemma. We first tabulate multiples of the larger (purported) multiplicand by 09: 5704689200685129054721 x ____ =
Code:
0 0 1 5704689200685129054721 2 11409378401370258109442 3 17114067602055387164163 4 22818756802740516218884 5 28523446003425645273605 6 34228135204110774328326 7 39932824404795903383047 8 45637513605481032437768 9 51342202806166161492489 Code:
59649589127497217 x 5704689200685129054721: 5: 28523446003425645273605 9: + 51342202806166161492489 6: + 34228135204110774328326 4: + 22818756802740516218884 9: + 51342202806166161492489 5: + 28523446003425645273605 8: + 45637513605481032437768 9: + 51342202806166161492489 1: + 5704689200685129054721 2: + 11409378401370258109442 7: + 39932824404795903383047 4: + 22818756802740516218884 9: + 51342202806166161492489 7: + 39932824404795903383047 2: + 11409378401370258109442 1: + 5704689200685129054721 7: + 39932824404795903383047  Sum= 340282366920938463463374607431768211457 [Nonzero Carries as noted: 11112332345456777777886775664432332 ] 
20131116, 00:57  #28 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
9823_{10} Posts 
...and if you did it in octal, you would have been done already, because calculation of 2^128+1 in octal doesn't need a separate calculation (no Lemma 1!).
Code:
First, prepare multiples of 3237257607274243001: 3237257607274243001 (x1) 6476537416570506002 (x2) 11736017226064751003 (x3) 15175277035361214004 (x4) 20434556644655457005 (x5) 23674036454151722006 (x6) 27133316263446165007 (x7) Now, add them in a staircase 3237257607274243001 1152401672664431414535001 * _________________________ 3237257607274243001 20434556644655457005 11736017226064751003 20434556644655457005 15175277035361214004 3237257607274243001 15175277035361214004 3237257607274243001 11736017226064751003 15175277035361214004 15175277035361214004 23674036454151722006 23674036454151722006 6476537416570506002 27133316263446165007 23674036454151722006 3237257607274243001 15175277035361214004 6476537416570506002 20434556644655457005 3237257607274243001 3237257607274243001 _______________________________________________ 4000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 
20131116, 01:01  #29 
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
10110111001111_{2} Posts 
There you go, invoking mysterious and highly untrustworthy "computational magic" again. :)

20131116, 01:28  #30 
Mar 2010
2^{6}×3 Posts 
Your posts are real eyes opener for me. In fact I learned today much more about people of this forum than in the past 3 years.
Batalov, you quoted me wrongly. You wrote 255 instead of 2^55. Someone could think that I made a mistake. Of course you cannot correct it, but be careful next time. BTW. No matter how much you write these proofs (i.e. about F5, F6, and F7) will stay my proofs and the only thing left for you it will be to write how you can divide 2 numbers or to multiply 2 numbers. Last fiddled with by literka on 20131116 at 01:30 
20131116, 01:42  #31 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
11·19·47 Posts 
Of course, they will. They will stay a monument to how one can scratch one's left ear not simply with the right hand, but more elegantly  with the toe on one's right foot.
On to the same Herculean task for F8, then? Is it already in the plans? 
20131116, 02:09  #32 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
11·19·47 Posts 
Here's how one "scratches left ear with the left hand".
(All you need is a pencil and one sheet of paper for up to F7 and if your handwriting is neat enough, with space to spare for the F8.) Code:
Lemma 5A. 641 divides 2^32+1. Proof: 2^8 = 256. Let's square this value two more times modulo 641, and compare to 6411. (256^2)%641 = 154 (154^2)%641 = 640. QED. Lemma 6A. 274177 divides 2^64+1. Proof: 2^16 = 65536. Let's square this value two more times modulo 274177, and compare to 2741771. (65536^2)%274177= 258768. (258768^2)%274177= 274176. QED. Lemma 7A and so on. Same thing over and over again. Last fiddled with by Batalov on 20131116 at 02:11 Reason: don't need (mod N) 
20131116, 02:18  #33  
Mar 2010
192_{10} Posts 
Quote:
I wrote "no more answers". I can make exception this time. For a while I thought I had similar proof for largest known factor of F12. You might notice that proofs for F6 and F7 are based on the same concept. I noticed some regularities. Since there are high degree polynomials let me introduce some abbreviations: Instead of a polynomial (3)*x^2+4*x5 I will write (3)(4)(5). Take 2 polynomials {1){0}(1)(1)(1)(1)(0)(1)(0)(1)(0)(2)(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(0)(1)(0)(0)(0)(1) and (1)(0)(1)(1)(0)(1)(0)(0)(0)(1) Product of these polynomials is (1)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(1)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(4)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(1) The value of the last polynomial for the point x=4 is F6. Hence values of first 2 polynomials must be factors of F6. What nice in this it is that last polynomial is nice looking almost symmetric polynomial. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
On Fermat's Last Number  c10ck3r  Miscellaneous Math  14  20121129 20:36 
Fermat number F6=18446744073709551617 is a composite number. Proof.  literka  Factoring  5  20120130 12:28 
Fermat number and Modulo for searching divisors  CyD  Factoring  4  20110531 11:24 
Fermat number factors  Citrix  Math  35  20070123 23:17 
New Fermat number divisor!  ET_  Factoring  1  20041008 03:34 