So, where are we? We assumed that is divisible by
, but
is not prime. We picked a divisor
of
and used it to define a group
, and yesterday we showed that
has order
in
. Today we’ll use this to derive a contradiction.
Recall that we picked so that
—we can always pick a divisor of
that is less than (or equal to) the square root of
. We then defined
in terms of
as
.
So how many elements are in the set ? That’s not too hard: there are
choices for the coefficient
, and
choices for the coefficient
; each pair of choices gives a different element of
, which therefore contains
elements.
So what about the order of ? We got
by throwing away elements from
without an inverse. At least we know that
doesn’t have an inverse. There might be more, depending on
, but at least we can say that
.
is in the group
, and we showed that the order of an element cannot exceed the order of the group. But, check this out:
The order of the group is less than the order of
! This is a contradiction. So, our assumption that
has a nontrivial divisor
must be wrong—
is prime!
It took 23 posts, but we have finally proved one direction of the Lucas-Lehmer test: if computing yields something divisible by
, then
is definitely prime.
And now I have to decide what to do with the remaining week. Of course, there is another direction to prove: we have only shown that the Lucas-Lehmer test correctly identifies primes (if is divisible by
, then
is prime), but it is possible to also prove the converse, that the Lucas-Lehmer test identifies all the Mersenne primes (if
is prime, then
will be divisible by
). I am still trying to figure out how difficult this proof is. I don’t think we’ll be able to fit it in the last 7 days of the month, but it still might be worth starting it and finishing it on a more relaxed schedule.
Of course, I’m also open to questions, suggestions, etc.!
I’d like to see some posts about ordinal numbers. I find them difficult.
Oh, that’s a nice idea!
I’ve been watching your MaBloWriMo posts since the beginning. Good job explaining the proof! I have a suggestion for the following week: what about proving Lagrange’s theorem?
Hmm, good idea!
Pingback: MaBloWriMo 24: Bezout’s identity | The Math Less Traveled