User:Sigmundur/wip/Mersenne primes

Theorems about Mersenne numbers

edit

Theorem: If a and p are natural numbers such that ap − 1 is prime, then a = 2 or p = 1.

Click "show" to see the proof

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.

Click "show" to see the proof

Proof: suppose that p is composite, hence can be written p = ab 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.

Click "show" to see the proof with examples
{{{2}}}

Theorem: If p is an odd prime, then any prime q that divides   must be congruent to  .

Click "show" to see the proof

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.

Click "show" to see the proof

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]