The prime number 3 1 can be expressed in the form n 5 − 1 , where n = 2 .
Are there any other primes that can be expressed in the form n 5 − 1 , where n is a positive integer?
Bonus: If the answer is yes, then what is the next number? If the answer is no, then why?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Is 1023 not a prime number? (4^5)-1
Log in to reply
No. It's divisible by 3.
Log in to reply
oh. Hadn't noticed...
Log in to reply
@Simon The Great – Divisibility by 3 is easy to check by adding the digits (1+0+2+3=6), and checking if that sum is divisible by 3.
In this case, the proof above demonstrates that for any value of n there is a divisor n − 1 , so you could have guessed it already based on the thing you're replying to...
Elegant solution.
Exactly what I did, noice
What is the point of the first line? That's rather pointless.
Log in to reply
Hi Daniel. I'm going to have to assume you're new here.
If you look at the top of my solution, you can see I posted my solution two weeks ago. Then check the reports on the problem to see the phrase "where n is a positive integer" was added no more than four days ago. Hopefully it's now evident why I put the first line there.
If nothing else, I've found it's much more conducive to making friends here by asking for clarification rather than claiming a statement is pointless.
Log in to reply
Apologies. I wasn't aware of the change in the problem description. I just assumed that you had blindly stated an obvious point already mentioned in the question, but now I see why. :)
Log in to reply
@Daniel Podobinski – It's all right.
Usually it's a good thing that the staff changes problems for clarity, but fairly often it makes the previously written solutions sound a little awkward. It even happens, although rarely, that someone changes the wording of a problem without notice and that change completely changes the problem (this happened on a previous Problem of the Week that only recently was fixed)
Three (3) also works. As a prime positive integer, three satisfies all the requirements and when used in place of, n, yields a result that is also prime; 47.
Log in to reply
I believe you are mistaken, and should reread the problem. I’m not sure where you got 47 from, but 3 5 − 1 = 2 4 2 = 2 ∗ 1 1 2
Thank you for your post. Did you use the Horner’s method to factor n^5 - 1 to (n-1)(n^4 ... )?
Other than the first prime 2, the larger primes are odd. Therefore, for n 5 − 1 to be a prime, n must be even and we can write n = 2 m , where m is a positive integer. Then we have:
n 5 − 1 = ( n − 1 ) ( n 4 + n 3 + n 2 + n + 1 ) = ( 2 m − 1 ) ( n 4 + n 3 + n 2 + n + 1 )
We note that other than m = 1 , then n = 2 and 2 m − 1 = 1 , n 5 − 1 = = 1 ( 2 m − 1 ) ( n 4 + n 3 + n 2 + n + 1 ) is always a composite.
I wouldn't even need to go that far. The very fact that n^5 - 1 can be re-written as a product of two factors, where (n - 1) is always greater than 2 (given the condition of the question), will mean we will never have a real prime.
(Edit: this solution came to my mind at a time but has a wrong assumption and it's not correct. Please see the Moderator note on it)
The result of multiplying odd numbers together is always an odd number and odd number -1 is an even number and 2 is the only even prime number exists.
This solution does not work because n is a positive integer in general, not necessarily prime itself. While this reasoning eliminates odd n from consideration, n might be even.
That's how I did it too - seems a lot simpler than factorising n^5-1!
While this is true, and it's even how I guessed it, this reasoning alone doesn't eliminate all of the even integers. It only eliminates the odds.
Log in to reply
Likewise, I was thinking of that as well.
You are right. For some reason I thought n should be prime too!
It's the endings. I can't explain further. But they help.
n is not always odd...
2, 4, 8, 16, 32 - 1 = 31 (prime) 3, 6, 12, 24, 48 - 1 = 47 (prime)
Log in to reply
3^5-1=3 3 3 3 3-1=243-1=242=2*121 (not prime) Powers listed 3, 9, 27, 81, 243
Raymond, the question is about n 5 not about n × 2 4 ...
Three, another prime positive integer, also works; disproving all the math & theorems displayed here.
Since n^5 -1 is a prime number n > 0. Note that n^5 - 1 can be factorized as (n-1)(1+n+n^2+n^3+n^4) which is clearly a product of 2 natural numbers. A prime no. is only divisible by itself and one. Thus (n-1) = 1 and so n=2 is the only solution for which n^5 -1 is prime.
Since n ≡ 1 ( mod n − 1 ) for all integer n > 2 , it follows that n 5 ≡ 1 ( mod n − 1 ) by raising both sides to the 5th power, and thus that n 5 − 1 ≡ 0 ( mod n − 1 ) .
So n − 1 factors n 5 − 1 , meaning that if n > 2 , n 5 − 1 cannot possibly be prime.
Of course, if n < 2 then n 5 − 1 ≤ 0 , but all primes are positive, so we can rule that out too.
Therefore, if n = 2 , n 5 − 1 is not prime.
In fact, we can use similar logic to show a more general result: if a p − 1 is prime for natural numbers a , p , then a = 2 or p = 1 . This is proven on the Wikipedia page for Mersenne primes .
This one's quite easy; since n 5 − 1 = ( n − 1 ) ( n 4 + n 3 + n 2 + n + 1 ) , we must deduce that, for any n > 2 , n 5 − 1 must be the product of at least two integers greater than 1 .
Simply, because
(n^5-1)=(n-1)(n^4+n^3+n^2+n+1),
there can't be another prime except for n=2. Thus,
Answer= No
improve more
For n greater than 2, n-1, which is a factor of n to the power of 5 -1, is greater than 1. So n to the power of 5-1 is composit.
n 5 − 1 = ( n − 1 ) ( n 4 + n 3 + n 2 + n + 1 ) . When n > 2, there will always be at least 2 factors, which makes n 5 − 1 a composite number.
I used modular arithmetics to solve this:
We assume that a prime number has to be a positive integer. If n ≤ 1, then n^5 - 1 is too small to be a prime. So let n be an integer greater than 2.
Then (n mod n-1) = (1 mod n-1), and (n * n * n * n * n mod n-1) is also equal to (1 mod n-1). Therefore, (n^5 - 1 mod n-1) = (0 mod n-1), i.e. n^5-1 is divisible by n-1 and therefore not a prime (since n-1 < n^5 -1)
n^5 - 1 can always be written in base n as the numeral “#{n-1}” repeated five times. (I say “numeral” because no matter how large the base, you would have to find a single symbol, such as a letter, to represent n - 1.) But that means that for any n you pick, the total value will be divisible by n - 1, and also by “11111” base n. The only reason that 2^5 - 1 happens to be prime is that 2 - 1 = 1, and “11111” base 2 = 31, and a prime number is allowed to be divisible by 1 and also itself. For any other n, the equation yields a composite number.
n^5-1 = n (n^4 -1) + (n-1) = n(n^2 -1)(n^2 +1) + (n-1) = n (n-1)(n+1)(n^2 +1) + (n-1)
This is divisible by 1, n^5-1 and n-1. For n>2, no. of factors > 2
a n − b n is always divisible by a − b , because
a n − b n = ( a − b ) ( ∑ i = 0 n − 1 a n − 1 − i b i )
Assume that there does exist a prime p > 3 1 which can be expressed in the form n 5 − 1
In this case, we have: n 5 − 1 5 ⟹ n − 1 ∣ n 5 − 1
But this is a contradiction, since p has no divisors except 1 and itself. So there is no other prime that can be expressed in this form.
The first thing I did was to look for a pattern:
I noticed that each term was divisible by n − 1
From here all you have to do is show that n − 1 is always a factor of n 5 − 1
The Factor Theorem says that since there is a value for n that satisfies both n − 1 = 0 and n 5 − 1 = 0 then n − 1 is a factor of n 5 − 1
Ummm, i must not be familiar with the "Factor Theorem" you've used... Could you please state it explicitly?
Multiplying odd numbers together must gives us odd numbers, and an odd number -1 is an even number. In order to get prime number, n must be even.
Notice that for n=4 , n 5 − 1 = 1 0 2 3 .1023 has a factor 3. And for n=6, n 6 − 1 = 7 7 7 5 . 7775 has a factor 5. So assuming that for n=2t, we have factor 2t-1.
Here is the proof:
n 5 − 1 = 3 2 t 5 − 1 = 3 2 t 5 − 2 t + 2 t − 1 = 2 t ( 1 6 t 4 − 1 ) + 2 t − 1 = 2 t ( 4 t 2 + 1 ) ( 4 t 2 − 1 ) + 2 t − 1 = ( 2 t − 1 ) [ 2 t ( 4 t 2 + 1 ) ( 2 t + 1 ) + 1 ]
In conclusion, except for n=2 , we can't get a prime number
All other results are products of primes by definition.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
If n ≤ 1 then n 5 − 1 ≤ 0 , so we may assume n ≥ 2 .
Then n 5 − 1 = ( n − 1 ) ( n 4 + n 3 + n 2 + n + 1 ) and 1 ≤ n − 1 < n 4 + n 3 + n 2 + n + 1
If n − 1 > 1 then this shows n 5 − 1 is the product of two integers larger than 1 , and therefore it couldn't be a prime.
The only remaining case is n = 2 which yields the example 3 1 given in the problem statement. We can therefore conclude that no other primes can be written as n 5 − 1 for an integer n .