Theorems about Mersenne numbers
editThis section needs editing to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. (May 2011) |
Theorem: If a and p are natural numbers such that ap − 1 is prime, then a = 2 or p = 1.
Proof: a ≡ 1 (mod a − 1). Then ap ≡ 1 (mod a − 1), so ap − 1 ≡ 0 (mod a − 1). Thus a − 1 | ap − 1. However, ap − 1 is prime, so a − 1 = ap − 1 or a − 1 = ±1. In the former case, a = ap, hence a = 0,1 (which is a contradiction, as neither 1 nor 0 is prime) or p = 1. In the latter case, a = 2 or a = 0. If a = 0, however, 0p − 1 = 0 − 1 = −1 which is not prime. Therefore, a = 2.
Theorem: If 2p − 1 is prime, then p is prime.
Proof: suppose that p is composite, hence can be written p = a⋅b with a and b > 1. Then (2a)b − 1 is prime, but b > 1 and 2a > 2, contradicting statement 1.
Theorem: If p is an odd prime, then any prime q that divides 2p − 1 must be 1 plus a multiple of 2p. This holds even when 2p − 1 is prime.
Theorem: If p is an odd prime, then any prime q that divides must be congruent to .
Proof: , so is a square root of 2 modulo . By quadratic reciprocity, any prime modulo which 2 has a square root is congruent to .
Theorem: A Mersenne prime cannot be a Wieferich prime.
Proof: We show if is a Mersenne prime, then the congruence does not satisfy. By Fermat's Little theorem, . Now write, . If the given congruence satisfies, then ,therefore . Hence ,and therefore λ ≥ 2m − 1. This leads to p − 1 ≥ m(2m − 1), which is impossible since m ≥ 2.
Theorem: A prime number divides at most one prime-exponent Mersenne number[1]