PlanetMath (more info)
 Math for the people, by the people. Sponsor PlanetMath
Encyclopedia | Requests | Forums | Docs | Wiki | Random | RSS  
Login
create new user
name:
pass:
forget your password?
Main Menu
Owner confidence rating: High Entry average rating: No information on entry rating
[parent] proof that there are infinitely many primes using the Mersenne primes (Proof)

Like Euclid's classic proof, this is also a proof by contradiction which starts out from the assumption that there is a largest prime number. But instead of building a primorial or a factorial, a Mersenne number is computed instead.

Proof. Assume that the odd prime $p$ is the largest prime number. Then $2^p - 1$ is composite, not a Mersenne prime. So what is the integer factorization of $2^p - 1$ ? By Fermat's little theorem we have $2^{p - 1} \equiv 1 \mod p$ , doubling that we get $2^p \equiv 2 \mod p$ , therefore $2^p - 1 \mod p$ . Since $2^p - 1$ is composite, it must have at least two prime factors.

If a prime number $q$ is a factor of $2^p - 1$ (that is, $2^p - 1 \equiv 0 \mod q$ ) then, since $2^{q - 1} - 1 \equiv 0 \mod q$ , assigning $d = \gcd(p, q - 1)$ , we have $2^d - 1 \equiv 0 \mod q$ . Then $d$ can not be 1 (for 2 - 1 is not congruent to 0 modulo $q$ ). Therefore $d = p$ and $q - 1$ is multiple of $p$ , and thus we derive that $q = np + 1$ .

Because we stipulated that $p$ is an odd prime and $2^p - 1$ is also an odd number, $n$ in the formula $np + 1$ must be an even number, so we can then set $m = \frac{n}{2}$ , giving us the form of the prime factors of $2^p - 1$ as $2mp + 1$ .

So now we have to solve for $m$ . There must be solutions in the range $0 < m < (2^{p - 1} - 1)$ . If $m = 1$ , that gives us $2p + 1$ as a prime factor of $2^p - 1$ , but since $(2p + 1) > p$ (regardless of which odd prime $p$ is), that also contradicts our first statement that $p$ is the largest prime. With any larger $m$ , the number $2mp + 1$ is even larger than $p$ , and thus our initial statement is contradicted regardless of the primality of $2^p - 1$ . $ \qedsymbol$

Two examples to show both scenarios: first, $p = 29$ is the largest prime. The corresponding Mersenne number is 536870911, which must be composite. In fact, its factorization, stated in relation to 2 and 29, is $(1 + 2 \times 4 \times 29)(1 + 2 \times 19 \times 29)(1 + 2 \times 36 \times 29)$ . Already the least prime factor, 233, is larger than 29, thus 29 can't be the largest prime.

Second example, $p = 31$ is the largest prime. The corresponding Mersenne number is 2147483647, which must be composite. But a search for solutions to $(2mp + 1) | (2^p - 1)$ , solving for $m$ , yields only two solutions, $m = 0$ and $m = 2^{p - 1} - 1$ , corresponding to 1 and $2^p - 1$ . This means 2147483647 is divisible only by 1 and itself, and is therefore prime, and is in fact a much larger prime than 31.

Note, however, that while this proves there are infinitely many primes, it does not resolve the issue of whether or not there are infinitely many Mersenne primes.




"proof that there are infinitely many primes using the Mersenne primes" is owned by PrimeFan.
(view preamble | get metadata)

View style:


This object's parent.
Log in to rate this entry.
(view current ratings)

Cross-references: divisible, least prime factor, relation, primality, even, number, range, solutions, even number, formula, odd number, congruent, factor, prime factors, Fermat's little theorem, integer factorization, Mersenne prime, composite, odd, Mersenne number, factorial, primorial, prime number, proof by contradiction, proof

This is version 4 of proof that there are infinitely many primes using the Mersenne primes, born on 2008-05-25, modified 2008-06-20.
Object id is 10625, canonical name is ProofThatThereAreInfinitelyManyPrimesUsingTheMersennePrimes.
Accessed 1567 times total.

Classification:
AMS MSC11A41 (Number theory :: Elementary number theory :: Primes)

Pending Errata and Addenda
None.
[ View all 1 ]
Discussion
Style: Expand: Order:
forum policy
error not fixed by lynx on 2008-06-02 08:43:23
Sorry but xy=1 mod p doesn't imply x=y=1 or x=y=-1 as it shows the following example: 3*4=1 mod 11.
[ reply | up ]
A litle gap in your proof? by lynx on 2008-05-26 11:44:10
I don't understand how you prove that any prime factor of 2^p-1 is of the form 2mp+1, I know it is true but it does not follow from the fact that 2^p-1=1 mod p because 21=1 mod 5 although none of its factors are congruent with 1 mod 5.
I would try in this way. If q is a factor of 2^p-1 (i.e. 2^p-1 = 0 mod q) then, since 2^{q-1}-1 = 0 mod q, 2^d-1 = 0 mod q, where d is the greatest common divisor of p and q-1. Since d can not be 1 (2-1 is congruent to 0 mod q) then d=p and q-1 is multiple of p (i.e. p=np+1).

And the second paragraph could much shorter: if 2^p-1 is greater than 1 then has a factor greater than 1 which, by being the form 2mp+1, will be greater than p.
[ reply | up ]

Interact
post | correct | update request | add example | add (any)