A Mersenne prime is a prime number defined by M n = 2 n − 1 and n is an integer. For some cases of n , it's a prime but some cases, it does not.
Is M 6 1 a prime?
As an explicit example, M 2 = 2 2 − 1 = 3 , which is an obvious prime number. And M 1 0 = 2 1 0 − 1 = 1 0 2 3 = 3 × 1 1 × 3 1 which is a composite number.
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.
Indeed, to concretely prove this, we need to use a deterministic test.
Probability of choosing the one correct answer out of 2 given options is 50%. For "show-off" questions like this one which involves complex or intensive computations, the correct answer is most likely a positive one (yes or true). I know it is not a solution. But honestly, that's how I got this one right.
Consider that 61 = 8n - 3, n is a natural
number
It same as with 5, 13, 21, ...
Then, we have to see :
2^5 - 1 = 31 ( prime )
2^13 - 1 = 8191 ( prime )
2^21 - 1 = 2097151 ( prime )
So on.
We can conclude that 2^( 8n - 3 ) - 1
always formed a prime number.
So, 2^61 - 1 is a prime number.
As pointed out, this solution by "check small cases" is not valid.
Wrong. It's not true when n=4.
But there would be some n which make your conclusion wrong.
Did you only check n = 1 and 2 only? The next n, which is 3, will make your conclusion wrong.
But your answer is right since n = 8 is true for your pattern.
Log in to reply
Do you expect us to show that 2 6 1 − 1 = 2 3 0 5 8 4 3 0 0 9 2 1 3 6 9 3 9 5 1 is prime by hand?
Log in to reply
No, sir. That would be better to do it with a computer.
Log in to reply
@Evan Huynh – Then change this problem to Computer Science instead of Number Theory.
This is one hilarious "proof".
You can't assume that if it works for the first few it therefore must work for all.
It's like the joke about the engineers proof that all odd numbers greater than 1 are prime.
What you can prove is that if n is composite then 2 n − 1 is also composite.
Since 6 1 is a prime we know 2 6 1 − 1 is a possible prime candidate.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
It returns true. Since Miller is a probabilistic primality test, I cannot be completely sure if it is prime or not. However, the chances of it not being prime are negligible.