Mersenne primes. So is this true or false, that if n is prime then (2^n -1) must also be prime?
hmmm I don't think so (could be wrong) maybe we can try to find a counterexample
n=2 we have M=3 n=3 we have M=7 n=5 we have M=31 n=7 we have M=127 so far these M's have been prime try the next prime number n
do you think 2^(11) -1 is prime or not?
yes, maybe...............
11 is prime
2047 does not divide 2,3,5,7,11,13,17, or 19.
2047 is composite
and I think you mean the other way around
but yeah 23 and 89 both divide 2047
n = 13; 8191 is prime n = 17; 131071 is prime n = 19; 524287 is prime Something is wrong........... 2^11-1 should be prime.........
why is something wrong?
you found a counterexample which means the statement above is false
n being prime doesn't imply M_n is prime
is 8388607 = 2^23-1 prime
That is way bigger than 2047 lol I would have to use a computer tell me
i divide by numbers 1-30 none of them work. if this number is composite then i believe this statement is false
we already found a counterexample so you should already believe the statement is false
is 11 not prime? is 2^(11)-1 not 2047 which is the product of 23 and 89?
ok, I am just wondering now if that is the only correction to this statement......
nope
there are probably infinitely more
they give more counterexamples there
i got the link
like notice in there n list they skip 11,23,29,...
37,41, and so on
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=factors+of+%282%5E%2823%29-1%29 for your question earlier
as you can see for n=23 M was composite since 2^(23)-1 =47(178481)
no wonder you didn't find the divisors they were pretty big
ok, biggest prime ever is 47983739879261
there should be bigger primes than that right?
2^.....................-1
(893041296^28.e+1380219695) + (3820981901^697910283685247e+3789281 +43) + 3810947265444810394765539821317422670881596
is prime
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!