5 Posts • Page 1 of 1
 |
 |
Author |
 |
Message |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Peter
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer


Offline Joined: 05 May 2004 Posts: 5214 Location: Ghent
|
A 14
Let be an integer with . Show that does not divide .
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 2:24 am |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
TomciO
Yang-Mills Theory

Offline Joined: 22 May 2005 Posts: 523 Location: Poland, Cracow.
|
Let be the smallest prime divisor of and let be the order of mod . Then of course: , , which implies that has a prime divisor smaller than , contradiction.
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 2:24 am |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
ZetaX
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer


Offline Joined: 21 Dec 2004 Posts: 6168 Location: München
|
Solution by Christian Hirsch (similar, but still different):
Assume that is the smallest number with that property. Then let and see that (by ), thus .
By minimality we have , giving , contradiction.
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 2:24 am |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
manjil
Riemann Hypothesis


Offline Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 255 Location: Tezpur
|
A nice solution The typing is not good!
We apply Fermat’s method of infinite descent to the prime factors of n . Let p1 be prime divisor of n and q be the smallest positive integer for which p1 divides 2q-1. From Fermat’s Little theorem it follows that p1 divides 2p1-1-1. Also we have q< p1-1<p
Let us prove that q divides n. If not let n=kq+r, where 0<r<q. Then 2n-1=2kq2r-1=(2q-1+1)2r-1 which is obviously equal to 2r-1 modulo p1.
It follows that p1 divides 2r-1, contradicting the minimality of q. Hence q divides n and 2q<p1. Let p2 be a prime divisor of q. Then it is also a divisor of n and hence p2<p1. Repeating the argument we construct an infinite sequence of prime divisors.
Hence the proof follows.
This problem is from the 1st Putnam in 1939 most probably!
|
_________________ Manjil P. Saikia
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:50 pm |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Joao Pedro Santos
P versus NP

Offline Joined: 24 Jul 2009 Posts: 32 Location: Portugal
|
Let be the smallest prime divisor of . So we have , which means that , but by the Fermat's Little Theorem, , so , so , which is impossible.
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:32 am |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
5 Posts • Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum You cannot post calendar events in this forum
|