mersenneforum.org New conjecture about Mersenne primes
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2019-01-20, 15:47 #1 tetramur   "unknown" Jan 2019 anywhere 17 Posts New conjecture about Mersenne primes William Bouris claimed in his mad proofs, that: "if p= 4*k+1, and q= 2*p+3 are both prime, then if [(M_r)^p-p] mod q == N, and q mod N == +/-1, then (M_r), the base, is prime. also, if (M_r) mod p = 1, then choose a different 'p' or if N is a square, then (M_r) is prime." The source site has been broken about four months ago. How could this claim be proven/disproven?
2019-01-20, 17:12   #2
tetramur

"unknown"
Jan 2019
anywhere

1116 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tetramur William Bouris claimed in his mad proofs, that: "if p= 4*k+1, and q= 2*p+3 are both prime, then if [(M_r)^p-p] mod q == N, and q mod N == +/-1, then (M_r), the base, is prime. also, if (M_r) mod p = 1, then choose a different 'p' or if N is a square, then (M_r) is prime." The source site has been broken about four months ago. How could this claim be proven/disproven?
Easy - disproven.
Counterexample:
Take r = 1279 (prime), p = 557, q = 1117.
((M_1279)^557-557) mod 1117 = 713
1117 mod 713 = 404, not +/-1
713 is not square
M_1279 mod 557 = 269

Last fiddled with by tetramur on 2019-01-20 at 17:13

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Mickey1 Miscellaneous Math 1 2013-05-30 12:32 Unregistered Information & Answers 0 2011-01-31 15:41 Thiele Math 18 2010-05-23 05:35 sascha77 Math 15 2010-05-08 00:33 Dougy Math 32 2008-10-26 07:17

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:23.

Sun Jun 26 11:23:25 UTC 2022 up 73 days, 9:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.63, 0.92, 0.98