0

I was doing a study on Fermat Numbers when I came across this theorem by Édouard Lucas (unproven in my reference material):

Every prime divisor of $F_n = 2^{2^{n}} + 1$ is of the form $k \cdot{2^{n+2}} + 1$ for some $ k \in \mathbb{N}$ and $ n > 1$.

I was able to prove that that it is indeed of the form $K \cdot{2^{n+1}} + 1$ using the following method:

Let $p$ be a prime factor of $F_n = 2^{2^{n}} + 1$. Since $F_n$ is odd, $p$ is odd. $\tag*{}$ $\implies \gcd(2,p) = 1 \\$ $\implies 2^{2^{n}} \equiv -1 \pmod{p} \\$ $\implies (2^{2^{n}})^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{p} \\$ $\implies 2^{2^{n+1}} \equiv 1 \pmod{p} \\$ $\implies \text{ord}_p(2) \mid 2^{n+1} \text{ but } \text{ord}_p(2) \nmid 2^{n} \\$ $\implies \text{ord}_p(2) = 2^{n+1}$ $\tag*{}$ Now using Fermat's Little Theorem: $$2^{p-1} \equiv 1 \pmod{p}$$ $\implies \text{ord}_p(2) \mid p-1 \implies 2^{n+1} \mid p-1 \\$ $\implies p = K \cdot{2^{n+1}} + 1 \text{ where } K \in \mathbb{N}$

But now how do we prove that $K$ is even?

I found a hint here which suggests the use of quadratic residues of $p$. But I have little to no knowledge of quadratic residues and its implications yet.

So it'd be much appreciated if you could walk me through the concept and how it is being used in respect to the problem at hand. A separate proof for the initial problem is also welcome. Thanks.

Remark: I could not find any good material on quadratic residues online, and certainly not on its implications that are being used here.

  • @DietrichBurde The result is weaker in https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1982369/let-p-be-a-prime-divisor-of-the-fermat-number-f-n-22-n-1-prove-that – Misha Lavrov Sep 10 '22 at 15:19
  • 1
    @MishaLavrov Thank you, I reopened the question. The correct duplicate is this one. – Dietrich Burde Sep 10 '22 at 15:23
  • @MishaLavrov This does provide a proof to the theorem but doesn't really help me with how quadratic residues were used in the process. I am not familiar with many methods used in the solution. That's why I request you not to close the question. Because these are different questions, albeit similar. – Nick Larry Sep 10 '22 at 16:32
  • It is the same question, it's just that the answer uses different methods. I'll write up a different answer to that question which explains the methods you're not familiar with, but that's better than having answers to the question in multiple places. – Misha Lavrov Sep 10 '22 at 17:25
  • Technically yes, these are the same question. But I didn't take so much time to write up the whole on a mobile device just to be reffered to a bland proof. I could have easily just asked to prove the theorem and I'd still have been reffered to the same place. I put effort into it because I want to know in detail about one specific part of the proof. I understand your concern about repeating answers on the platform. But I am sure that my question, if answered, would be more useful to learners than the reffered proof. Hope you see my point. – Nick Larry Sep 10 '22 at 17:33
  • 1
    @NickLarry I said I'd write up a different proof! I have written it up now - it just took a bit of time :) – Misha Lavrov Sep 10 '22 at 17:39
  • @MishaLavrov Thanks. That helped. – Nick Larry Sep 10 '22 at 19:16

0 Answers0