Find the sum of all integers n > 1 such that
n 2 2 n + 1
is an integer.
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.
Your proof that 3 ∣ n could've been a lot shorter: 2 n + 1 = 3 ( 2 n − 1 − 2 n − 2 + ⋯ − 2 + 1 ) , since n is odd.
Log in to reply
Good point :D
Log in to reply
What book on NT are you reading?Because on one place you said "the proof is left to the reader", so obviously you have taken it from some book.
Your proof has left me in tears!! :(
Log in to reply
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
It is easy to guess that n = 3 is a unique solution. Let us prove it.
We divide the proof into several steps. The first step is to consider the minimal prime divisor p of n , and from n ∣ ( 2 n + 1 ) we can deduce p = 3 .
Proof:
Clearly n is odd. Let r 1 be the order of 2 modulo p . By 2 n ≡ − 1 ( m o d n ) we have
2 2 n ≡ 1 ( m o d p ) ⋯ ( 1 )
As p ≥ 3 , by Fermat's Little Theorem, we get
2 p − 1 ≡ 1 ( m o d p ) ⋯ ( 2 )
( 1 ) and ( 2 ) and the properties of order imply r 1 ∣ 2 n and r 1 ∣ ( p − 1 ) , so r 1 ∣ g cd ( 2 n , p − 1 ) . It is easy to prove g cd ( 2 n , p − 1 ) = 2 . This is because from 2 ∣ n one has 2 ∣ g cd ( 2 n , p − 1 ) , and 2 2 ∣ g cd ( 2 n , p − 1 ) . On the other hand, if there is an odd prime q such that q ∣ g cd ( 2 n , p − 1 ) , then q ∣ ( p − 1 ) and q ∣ n , but the former shows q < p . This contradicts the fact that p is the minimal prime divisor of n . So g cd ( 2 n , p − 1 ) = 2 , thus r 1 = 2 , and p = 3 .
Hence we can assume
n = 3 m c , m ≥ 1 , 3 ∣ c ⋯ ( 3 )
In the second step, we prove m = 1 . By n 2 ∣ ( 2 n + 1 ) we have 2 3 m c ≡ − 1 ( m o d 3 2 m ) , thus
2 2 × 3 m c ≡ 1 ( m o d 3 2 m ) ⋯ ( 4 )
If m ≥ 2 , then we get that the order of 2 modulo 3 2 m is 2 × 3 2 m − 1 (The proof is left as an exercise to the reader). So ( 4 ) implies 2 × 3 2 m − 1 ∣ 2 × 3 m c , i.e. 3 m − 1 ∣ c . Thus 3 ∣ c (as m ≥ 2 ), which contradicts 3 ∣ c in ( 3 ) . So m = 1 .
In the third step, we prove c = 1 in ( 3 ) . This can be done similarly as the first step.
If c > 1 , let s be the least prime divisor of c , then
2 3 c ≡ − 1 ( m o d s ) ⋯ ( 5 )
Let r 2 be the order of 2 modulo s . By ( 5 ) we have 2 6 c ≡ 1 ( m o d s ) . Furthermore we also have 2 s − 1 ≡ 1 ( m o d s ) , so r 2 ∣ 6 c and r 2 ∣ ( s − 1 ) , thus r 2 ∣ g cd ( 6 c , s − 1 ) . According to the choice of s we have g cd ( s − 1 , c ) = 1 , so r 2 ∣ 6 . Also, 2 r 2 ≡ 1 ( m o d s ) implies s = 3 or 7 . It is easy to see that s = 3 is impossible, and by ( 5 ) , s = 7 is impossible too. Thus c = 1 , and n = 3 .
Note that if we first prove c = 1 in ( 3 ) , then it would not work well. Here the order of proof is very important. Besides, the identity m = 1 in the second step can also be proved by comparing the powers of primes as follows.
It follows from the binomial theorem that
2 n + 1 = ( 3 − 1 ) n + 1 = 3 n + k = 2 ∑ n ( − 1 ) k ( k n ) 3 k ⋯ ( 6 )
Let 3 a ∣ k ! . Then
α = l = 1 ∑ ∞ [ 3 l k ] < l = 1 ∑ ∞ 3 l k = 2 k .
Thus by
( k n ) 3 k = k ! n ( n − 1 ) ⋯ ( n − k + 1 ) 3 k
we have that ( k n ) 3 k is divisible by 3 β , and β satisfies (note that k ≥ 2 )
β ≥ k + m − α > k + m − 2 k ≥ m + 1 ,
so β ≥ m + 2 . Thus the sum on the right side of ( 6 ) is divisible by 3 m + 2 . If m > 1 , then 2 m ≥ m + 2 , so it follows from 3 2 m ∣ ( 2 n + 1 ) and ( 6 ) that 3 m + 2 ∣ 3 n , i.e. 3 m + 1 ∣ n , in contradiction with ( 3 ) . Thus m = 1 .
Hence the conclusion is proven, and we are done.