Is 2 97 + 1 2^{97}+1 a prime number?

Is 2 97 + 1 2^{97}+1 a prime number?

Yes No

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.

4 solutions

Alan Yan
Jan 29, 2016

2 97 + 1 ( 1 ) 97 + 1 0 m o d 3 2^{97}+1\equiv (-1)^{97}+1\equiv 0 \mod 3

Definitely more elegant. Thanks.

Marta Reece - 5 years, 4 months ago
Marta Reece
Jan 29, 2016

2 97 + 1 2^{97}+1 is divisible by 3 and is therefore not a prime number. More generally any even power of 2 is one larger than a number divisible by 3 and any odd power of 2 is one smaller than a number divisible by 3.

To show that this is so, let's start with a number which is one larger than a number divisible by 3. This number can be written as 3n + 1. Multiplying this number by 2 we get 6n + 2. This number is 2 larger than a number divisible by 3, therefore it is also one smaller than a number divisible by 3.

Let's take this number, one which is one smaller than a number divisible by 3 and can therefore be written as 3m - 1, and multiply it by 2. We get 6m - 2, which is 2 smaller than a number divisible by 3, and is therefore 1 larger than a number divisible by 3.

So if we repeatedly multiply by 2 we go from being one below a number divisible by 3 to being one over, to being one below etc.

To finish the proof by induction we need a starting point. 2 2 1 = 3 2^{2}-1=3 is divisible by 3. 2 2 2^{2} is an even power of 2 and is one larger than a number divisible by 3. Multiply it by 2 to get 2 3 2^{3} and it will be one smaller than a number divisible by 3, etc. All even powers of 2 will be one over, all odd will be one below. 2 97 2^{97} is an odd power of 2, it is one smaller than a number divisible by 3. Add 1 and you get a number divisible by 3.

Patrick Heebels
Jan 31, 2016

In response to Marta Reece : Thank you for your proof in 'words'. Below is one part of your proof by induction written in a more familiar way to me. Maybe it is helpful for some other readers interested in proofs by induction.


Proof by induction that 3 2 2 n + 1 + 1 3 \, \big| \, 2^{2n+1} + 1 for n 0 n \geq 0

1. Base case

n = 0 2 2 0 + 1 + 1 = 3 n=0 \Rightarrow 2^{2 \cdot 0 + 1} + 1 = 3 and 3 is clearly divisible by 3.

2. Induction case

Assume the statement is true for n = m n = m , so 3 2 2 m + 1 + 1 3 \, \big| \, 2^{2m+1} + 1 for m 0 m \geq 0 and therefore 2 2 m + 1 + 1 2^{2m+1} + 1 can be written as 3 k 3k for some natural number k k .

For n = m + 1 n = m+1 it follows that:

2 2 ( m + 1 ) + 1 + 1 = 2^{2(m+1) + 1} + 1 =

2 ( 2 m + 1 ) + 2 + 1 = 2^{(2m+1) + 2} + 1 =

4 2 2 m + 1 + 1 = 4 \cdot 2^{2m+1} + 1 =

4 ( 2 2 m + 1 + 1 ) 3 = 4 \cdot (2^{2m+1} + 1) - 3 =

4 3 k 3 = 3 ( 4 k 1 ) 4 \cdot 3k - 3 = 3 \cdot (4k - 1)

which is clearly divisible by 3.

For n = 48 n = 48 it follows that 2 97 + 1 2^{97} + 1 is divisible by 3 and therefore it is not a prime number.

Ossama Ismail
Jan 29, 2016

2 79 + 1 = ( 2 79 + 2 78 + 2 77 + . . . + 2 + 1 ) ( 2 78 + 2 77 + . . . + 2 ) 2^{79} + 1 = (2^{79} + 2^{78} + 2^{77} + ... +2+1) - (2^{78} + 2^{77} + ... +2) = ( 2 80 1 ) ( 2 79 2 ) = ( 2^{80} - 1 ) - (2^{79} - 2 )

Which is not a prime number.

So what is conclusion?

More simply: 2 79 + 1 = ( 2 + 1 ) ( 2 78 2 77 + . . . 2 + 1 ) 2^{79} + 1 = (2 + 1)(2^{78} - 2^{77} + ... -2 + 1) and we are done.

Alan Yan - 5 years, 4 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...