Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Math Help - Prime Numbers (difficult question about something seemingly simple)

  1. #31
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by gmatt View Post
    Best bet at figuring this out is probably modifying Pepin's test and running an optimized computer program:

    Pépin's test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    That sounds rather complicated! Surely there must be a more simple way of proving this?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #32
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by yeah:) View Post
    That sounds rather complicated! Surely there must be a more simple way of proving this?
    Fermat primes are very complicated, the primes you suggested are very similar to fermat primes.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #33
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    51
    There must be an easier way! Has this forum given up?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    288
    i suggested an answers a few post ago, not sure if it is right though but nobody responded thanks to that strange interupption, hope it helps sorry for this messed up thread
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #35
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by hmmmm View Post
    ok so if we have that 10^m+1 is coposite for all odd m, then we assume m is even and so

    10^m + 1 = 10^2k +1 = 100^k + 1 and so if k is odd then we have the number is composite, if it is not then we just repeat the process until we have the exponent as an odd number which we will get as m must be a finite, and so there are no more primes of this form, is this helpful??
    This was first stated by Roninpro in the first response, that is the only possible primes of the form 10^k+1 must be of the form 10^{2^n}+1 for some n.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    288
    sorry if i am being stupid here but why does this mean that 10^(2^n) + 1 are excluded, surely they can be reduced using this same process?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #37
    MHF Contributor chiph588@'s Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by hmmmm View Post
    sorry if i am being stupid here but why does this mean that 10^(2^n) + 1 are excluded, surely they can be reduced using this same process?
    Because the method I used shows that a divisor of 10^2^n+1 is 10^2^n+1. This doesn't show it's composite.

    On a side note, I think it's time for this tread to die.
    Last edited by chiph588@; June 6th 2010 at 05:47 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #38
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    51
    So if the best mathematicians here are giving up, where do I go next?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #39
    MHF Contributor chiph588@'s Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by yeah:) View Post
    So if the best mathematicians here are giving up, where do I go next?
    What's this problem for anyway?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #40
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Quote Originally Posted by yeah:) View Post
    So if the best mathematicians here are giving up, where do I go next?

    Ask your instructor: either0she/he has a solution nobody has thought about here, or else she/he'll tell you there's no known answer. Instructors sometimes do that.

    Tonio
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #41
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    51
    If there is no solution, how can I show that there is no solution?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #42
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by yeah:) View Post
    If there is no solution, how can I show that there is no solution?
    You assume there exists a solution and show that it would imply a contradiction.

    What you are asking is basically for a method to prove that a generalized fermat number (in this case 10^{2^n}+1 ) is not prime over a certain value of n which is an open problem in mathematics as far as I know.

    If this homework is from a computer-science class maybe your prof wants you to devise a method to test for primality, in which case Pepin's test would probably be the best approach (for deterministic primality, for probabilistic primality other algorithms may work better.)

    Please refer to GFN10 factoring status if you don't believe me that this is an open problem. So far, up to n=18 Keller has compiled a list of known prime factors of the generalized fermat numbers, meaning they are all not prime.

    You can read more about fermat numbers here
    Generalized Fermat Number -- from Wolfram MathWorld
    and here
    Fermat number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #43
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    51
    Would anyone care to set out such an answer?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #44
    MHF Contributor chiph588@'s Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    From
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by yeah:) View Post
    Would anyone care to set out such an answer?
    Clearly we don't know how to get any further. We're not here to do your work for you anyway. What have you tried??
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #45
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by yeah:) View Post
    Would anyone care to set out such an answer?
    As gmatt said, this is an open problem in mathematics. Asking us to solve it for you is like asking us to prove or disprove the Goldbach conjecture or the Riemann hypothesis for you.

    It may interest you to know that this exact question has been asked before on another thread in another forum (which I found through a Google search). Over there, someone came up with the spin of interpreting the numbers as given in base 2, for which the question can be easily answered. Except for that spin, the same conclusion was reached over there as over here.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Simple Windows application to compute prime numbers
    Posted in the Math Software Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 9th 2010, 12:03 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 26th 2010, 08:20 AM
  3. seemingly simple derivative
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 17th 2009, 06:05 PM
  4. Help with a (seemingly?) simple proof.
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 27th 2009, 09:38 PM
  5. Seemingly simple probability question...
    Posted in the Statistics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 23rd 2009, 11:05 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum