anonymous
  • anonymous
Show that if \[2^{m}+1\] is prime then \[m=2^{n}\] \[n \in \mathbb{N} \] Guidance: \[m=r*2^{n}\] So I've started like this: \[2^{m}+1=2^{r*2^{n}} +1 = \left( 2^{2^{n}} \right)^{r}+1\] I assume that's a somewhat correct beginning but how do I continue?
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
I would really appreciate some help :) @hba @ganeshie8 @ghazi
anonymous
  • anonymous
have you shown why m has to be a multiple of \(2^n\)?
anonymous
  • anonymous
No, not really

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
That was just the information I got from the start
anonymous
  • anonymous
yup, don't you feel strange that m has to be a multiple of 2 to start with? the question seems to apply for all \(2^m +1\) is prime statements.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well kind of but i guess the idea is to show the fermat primes by construction the fermat number with the mulitiple of r
anonymous
  • anonymous
ah. So the question immediately assumes that this is not a proof of fermat primes and instead is asking to proof r=1? lol
anonymous
  • anonymous
\[r=1\rightarrow 2^{2^{n}}+1 | (2^{2^{n}})^{r}+1\] \[r=odd \ge 1 \rightarrow 2^{2^{n}}+1 | (2^{2^{n}})^{r}+1\] The second one should be " does not divide" The conlusion is that the trivial dividor is r=1
anonymous
  • anonymous
To me it doesn't make much sense though :/
anonymous
  • anonymous
the second one will be out as there is no integer resulting from dividing \(2^{2n} +1\)and \(2^{2nr} +1\) as the number is prime. r=even case is trivial as if r=even, then it's in \(2^n\)
anonymous
  • anonymous
Oh I think I understand, so since the number is prime it can't divide which shows us that the assumption in the beginning statement is correct, that if 2^m+1 is prime then m=2^n, am I right?
anonymous
  • anonymous
One more thing, how do I know that r should be odd?
anonymous
  • anonymous
well, since it's \(2^{2nr}\), r cannot be even as that would still mean \(2^{2n}\) so it should be odd
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ok, I see that you're writing 2^(2n) and it's 2^(2^n), just a writing error or is the explanation you've made based on 2^(2n) ?
anonymous
  • anonymous
writing error lol if r is even, then it will either revert to case one or case two. e.g. r=6 will revert to case two and r=8 will revert to case one.
sirm3d
  • sirm3d
it m is not a power of two, it contains at least one factor other than 2 or an odd factor
sirm3d
  • sirm3d
we also know that \[x^n+1\] is always factorable for positive odd integers n.
sirm3d
  • sirm3d
one root of \[\large x^n+1\] for odd n is \[\large x=-1\] hence a factor \[\large x+1\] thus \[\large x^n+1=(x+1)(x^{n-1}-x^{n-2}+...-x+1)\] or \[\large x^n+1\] is not prime
sirm3d
  • sirm3d
we conclude that the only possibility that \[\huge2^m+1\] to be prime is that m does not contain an odd factor, or that \[\huge m=2^n \]
sirm3d
  • sirm3d
@frx the proof is by contradiction
anonymous
  • anonymous
I think i understand it
anonymous
  • anonymous
I have the solution now so I need to sit down and learn the procedure.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Thank you sirm3d :)
sirm3d
  • sirm3d
one warning, though. even if m=2^n there is no guarantee that 2^m + 1 is prime. What the problem asserts is that 2^m + 1 is ALWAYS composite if m contains a factor other than 2.
anonymous
  • anonymous
That I know, the only primes known are those produced by n=0,1,2,3,4 for 5<=n<=32 the numbers are all composite :)

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.