Mersenne Primes
 

Can anyone shed light on whether the attached theorem is true?
If it is not true, could you indicate where the problem is.[ATTACH]7576[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Stan;286783]Can anyone shed light on whether the attached theorem is true?
If it is not true, could you indicate where the problem is.[/QUOTE]


looks to me it assumes it's true the only proof type I know of that does that is a proof by contradiction. I also see a referral to proposition 4.1 which I don't see.

Mersenne Primes
 

Can anyone shed light on whether the attached theorem is true?
If it is not true, could you indicate where the problem is[ATTACH]7578[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Stan;286807]Can anyone shed light on whether the attached theorem is true?
If it is not true, could you indicate where the problem is[ATTACH]7578[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]
Check the part beginning at the fifth line from the bottom of the page.

[QUOTE=Stan;286807]Can anyone shed light on whether the attached theorem is true?
If it is not true, could you indicate where the problem is[ATTACH]7578[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][TEX]2^{n_3}= 1 (\text{ mod } n_4), ..., 2^{n_o}= 1 (\text { mod } n_1) \text { since each } n_i ,1 =< i =< 4[/TEX], is a distinct prime.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how this only applies to primes [TEX]2^{x_y}-1 = x_{y+1}[/TEX] implies [TEX]2^{x_y} = 1 \text { mod x_{y+1}}[/TEX] regardless if the sequence they are in are all prime.

[QUOTE=ccorn;286808]Check the part beginning at the fifth line from the bottom of the page.[/QUOTE]
And, regarding the fourth line from the bottom, note that
5*phi(5) | phi(33), but 25 does not divide 33.

[QUOTE=ccorn;286812]And, regarding the fourth line from the bottom, note that
5*phi(5) | phi(33), but 25 does not divide 33.[/QUOTE]
Your note is correct, but my statement says 5 has to divide 32, which it does not.