Fork me on GitHub
Math for the people, by the people.

User login

number theory

number, integer, Gauss, Legendre, Euler, Dedekind, Wiles, Weil, Grothendieck, Deligne, Faltings, Serre, prime
Type of Math Object: 
Major Section: 
Groups audience: 

Mathematics Subject Classification

11-01 no label found


Can you help me with this...

Assume p is prime. Prove that p divides 2^p-2 .

p = 2 is trivial. So assume p not equal 2, therefore gcd(2,p) = 1.
But you have 2[2^{p-1}-1]/p. So that you must to show 2^{p-1}-1 divides p. Do a left click on pahio's link, read, and you get it.


2^{p-1}-1 divides p???? p divides 2^{p-1}-1 ! Sorry.

Consider the sequence a[n]=4+7(n-1)=7n-3. In my text this sequence is represented as follows: a, a+d, a+2d, a+3d,... a+n(n-1)d,...

My comment is that the a+n(n-1)d terms represent some of the terms but not each and every successive term. Please feel free to comment. Thanks.


OK, I just multiplied Fermat's little theorem by a to get

a^p is congruent to a mod p which is the same form as

2^p is congruent to 2 mod p. So p divides a^p -p.

Sorry that's p divides a^p -a .

Must be typo.

What would be the typo? The equality 4 + 7(n - 1) = 7n - 3 checks out. To make sense of a, a + d, a + 2d, a + 3d, ... a + n(n - 1)d, ... plug in a = 4 and d = 7. Then the whole thing becomes just another way of writing a + (n - 1)d = 4 + 7(n - 1).

check out fermats little theorem

Subscribe to Comments for "number theory"