Let $p=2^{2m+1}-2^{m+1}+1$ be a prime number, where $m\geq1$ is an integer. Under which conditions can we say that $(kp+1) \mid 2^{4m+2}$, where $k\geq 1$ is a positive integer?
-
$\begingroup$ The answer most likely is $p=5$, but I don't have a proof. What motivates this question? Gerhard "It Seems Way Too Restrictive" Paseman, 2017.01.10. $\endgroup$– Gerhard PasemanCommented Jan 10, 2017 at 17:31
-
2$\begingroup$ @darya: This question was almost closed. It would help your case a lot in the future if you used latex and tried to write the question in coherent English (the question only become coherent after being rewritten by moderators). $\endgroup$– Daniel LoughranCommented Jan 10, 2017 at 18:44
-
1$\begingroup$ Thank you @Darya. Also in the future, we are willing to help people in earnest who follow the rules. For a question like this, where it is not clear if it is a contest problem or homework, A) write down some of the motivation or source of the problem, plus (briefly) what you have tried to solve it and why it doesn't solve it, and B) if you need it, a request for editing and formatting help. We can only do B) if you tell us enough (and not too much!) that we can read your meaning correctly. Gerhard "Better Ask For Better Writing" Paseman, 2017.01.10. $\endgroup$– Gerhard PasemanCommented Jan 10, 2017 at 18:54
-
1$\begingroup$ @Gerhard paseman thanks for your hints, ok I will follow the rules you mentioned. $\endgroup$– daryaCommented Jan 10, 2017 at 19:35
-
1$\begingroup$ @Daniel loughran thank you so much, I will follow the rules and instructions. $\endgroup$– daryaCommented Jan 10, 2017 at 19:55
1 Answer
As Gerhard says, $m=1$ works giving $p=5$ and $k=3$. I claim that this is the only time it happens.
Let $m\geq2$ be an integer, and set $p=2^{2m+1}-2^{m+1}+1$. I don't care if $p$ is prime or not, but note at this point that $p\geq25$ is odd.
Let's try and work out the multiplicative order of 2 mod $p$. Surprisingly (to me), this can be computed exactly (which is actually what motivated me to type this result in). Powers of $2$ from $2^1$ up to $2^{2m}$ are clearly in $[2,p-1]$, so the order of $2$ isn't in this range.
Next note that $2^{2m+1}=2^{m+1}-1$ mod $p$, again in $[2,p-1]$, as are $2^{2m+2},\ldots,2^{3m}=2^{2m}-2^{m-1}$ (all equalities are congruences mod $p$ here, I'm working mod $p$).
This doesn't look like it's going anywhere, but let's press on. We have $2^{3m+1}=2^{2m+1}-2^m$ which is congruent to $2^{m+1}-2^m-1=2^m-1$. If $m$ were $1$ then this would be $1$, but I've assumed $m\geq2$ so again this is in the range $[2,p-1]$. Let's press on!
We have $2^{3m+2}$, $2^{3m+3}$ etc all in $[2,p-1]$, up to $2^{4m+1}=2^{2m}-2^m$. Next we have $2^{4m+2}$ and this equals $2^{2m+1}-2^{m+1}=-1$ mod $p$. Hence $2^{4m+2}$ is congruent to $-1$ mod $p$ and the order of $2$ mod $p$ is at least $4m+3$ (because I have explicitly verified that $2^d$ is not $1$ mod $p$ for $1\leq d\leq 4m+2$). But on the other hand it also must divide $8m+4$ because $(-1)^2=1$ mod $p$, and the only divisor of $8m+4$ strictly greater than half of $8m+4$ is $8m+4$.
We conclude that for $m\geq2$ there is no solution to $2^t$ congruent to $1$ mod $p$ with $t\leq 4m+2$ and this is just another way of saying that no $k$ exists.
I must say I'm slightly surprised that one can compute the exact order of $2$ mod $p$ here. Maybe I've seen some similar trick with Mersenne primes once before (maybe in the algorithm they use to check if a large Mersenne number is prime?)
Note finally that if $x=2^m$ then $p=2x^2-2x+1$, so $4x^4+1=(2x^2-2x+1)(2x^2+2x+1)$ is a multiple of $p$ and hence $4x^4$ is congruent to $-1$ mod $p$, which is a simpler proof that $2^{4m+2}$ is $-1$ mod $p$, but all we can deduce from this simpler argument is that the order of $2$ mod $p$ is $4$ times an odd divisor of $2m+1$; as far as I can see one has to go through the above rigmarole to compute the true order.
-
$\begingroup$ What a great way!!! Thank you very much $\endgroup$– daryaCommented Jan 10, 2017 at 18:19
-
$\begingroup$ If you write p in trinary (not ternary) as 1 000...-1 000... 1, you get a feel for why 5 is an easy guess, as the binary equivalent (when m=1) is 101, since the lengths of the strings of zeros differ. I 'm glad you saved me the trouble of writing down an analysis. Gerhard "Finds Typing Easier Than Writing" Paseman, 2017.01.10. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 10, 2017 at 18:39