Question

every primes graters than 2 can writing in the form
(2 on exponent (n+1) +1).
True or False ?

Answer 1

\[2^{n+1}+1\]?

Answer 2

yes

Answer 3

so prove it than ...

Answer 4

n>=0

Answer 5

It's false i think

Answer 6

for example, it does't work for 7

Answer 7

If n is supposed to be an integer, 7 would be a fine counterexample.

Answer 8

here is my proof.
109 is prime

Answer 9

moneybird you can prove it ?

Answer 10

actually i like moneybirds proof better. only need to go up to 7

Answer 11

so than the primes not can never writing in the form 2 on exponent (n) +1 or ...how ?

Answer 12

5 can be written that way as
\[2^2+1\]

Answer 13

just in the form (2n+1) ?

Answer 14

The statement says every. If you have a counterexample, then the statement is false.

Answer 15

and 7=2*2+2+1

Answer 16

i think there is some confusion in this question . why would anyone write
\[2^{n+1}+1\] instead of
\[2^n+1\]?

Answer 17

not is just for we can getting when n=0 so yes sorry i have wrote firstly 2 on exponent n-1
+1

Answer 18

when n=1 than we get 2 on exponent 0 =1 so than will be 1+1=2

Answer 19

than 2+2=4 and hence in this way we can getting 4 like sum of two primes

Answer 20

i am still confused by the question. it is not true that for all n
\[2^n+1\] is prime and it is not true that for all primes
\[p=2^n+1\]

Answer 21

for example
\[2^3+1=9\] not prime and
\[7\neq 2^n+1\]

Answer 22

thank you satellite73 so than 2 on exponent n + 3 will be right always ?

Answer 23

i think yes