20200910, 16:29  #1 
"unknown"
Jan 2019
anywhere
17 Posts 
Possible proof of Reix' conjecture (Wagstaff primes, plus some issues)
I claim to have proved the Reix' conjecture (2007), part "if":
Theorem 1.1. Let p > 3 prime and for the sequence S0 = 3/2, Sk+1 = Sk^2 − 2 it is true that S(p1) − S0 is divisible by W(p), then W(p) = (2^p+1)/3 is also prime (Wagstaff prime). Proof: Let w = 3+√7/4 and v = 3√7/4. Then it is proved by induction then Sk = w^2^k + v^2^k. Suppose S(p1) − S0 = 0 (mod Wp). Then w^2^(p1) + v^2^(p1)  w  v = k*Wp for some integer k, so w^2^(p1) = k*Wp  v^2^(p1) + w + v w^2^p = k*Wp*w^2^(p1)  1 + w^(2^(p1)1)*(w^2+1) (1) [w*v = 1, it can be easily proved: 9/16  (7)/16 = 9/16 + 7/16 = 1] We are looking for contradiction  let Wp be composite and q be the smallest prime factor of Wp. Wagstaff numbers are odd, so q > 2. Let Q_q be the rationals modulo q, and let X = {a+b √7} where a,b are in Q_q. Multiplication in X is defined as (a+b√7)(c+d√7) = [(ac  7bd) mod q] + √7 [(ad+bc) mod q] Since q > 2, it follows that w and v are in X. The subset of elements in X with inverses forms a group, which is denoted by X* and has size X*. One element in X that does not have an inverse is 0, so X* <= X1=q^42*q^3+q^21. [Why is it? Because X contains pair of rationals modulo q, and suppose we have rational a/b mod q. We have q possibilities for a and q1 possibilities for b, because 0 has no inverse in X. This gives q(q1) possibilities for one rational and (q(q1))^2 for two rationals, equal to q^42*q^3+q^2 elements.] Now Wp = 0 (mod q) and w is in X, so k*Wp*w^2^(p1) = 0 in X. Then by (1), w^2^p = 1 + w^(2^(p1)1)*(w^2+1) I want to find order of w in X and I conjecture it to be exactly 2^(2*p). [I couldn't resolve this when I was working for a proof.] Why is it? If we look to similar process to 2^p1, w = 2+√3, v = 2√3, we have equality w^2^p = 1, order is equal to 2^p, but it is the first power of 2 to divide 2^p1 with remainder 1. Similarly, 2^(2*p) is the first power of 2 to divide Wp with remainder 1, and I conjecture that it is the true order. The order of an element is at most the order (size) of the group, so 2^(2*p) <= X* <= q^42*q^3+q^21 < q^4. But q is the smallest prime factor of the composite Wp, so q^4 <= ((2^p+1)/3)^2. This yields the contradiction: 9*2^2p < 2^2p + 2^(p+1) + 1 8*2^2p  2*2^p  1 < 0 2^p = t 8t^22t1<0 D = 4+4*8=36 = 6^2 t1,2 = 2+6/16 t1 > 1/4 t2 < 1/2, 2^p < 1/2, p < 1 Therefore, Wp is prime. So, I think it is almost proven, but there is one issue. Conjecture 1. Let p be prime p > 3, q be the smallest divisor of Wp = (2^p+1)/3 and both a, b be rationals mod q, then the order of the element w = 3+√7/4 in the field X of {a+b √7} is equal to 2^(2*p). If both conjecture and proof turn out to be true, then converse of Reix' conjecture (that is, converse of VrbaGerbicz theorem) is actually true (I think) and we have an efficient primality test for Wagstaff numbers  deterministic, polynomial and unconditional, similar to LucasLehmer test for Mersenne numbers. Last fiddled with by tetramur on 20200910 at 16:38 
20210320, 18:18  #2 
Feb 2004
France
1626_{8} Posts 
Hi tetramur,
I've just seen your post. I need to refresh my few Maths skills before saying anything. And probably that I'll not be able to say if it is correct or not. Anyway, I'm happy to see that people are still trying to prove this. Thanks. Tony Reix 
20210711, 09:31  #3 
"unknown"
Jan 2019
anywhere
17 Posts 
Thanks for your feedback. Anyway, it'll be interesting to prove Conjecture 1. Maybe one day I'll post the proof here.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Status of Wagstaff testing? and testing Mersenne primes for Wagstaffness  GP2  Wagstaff PRP Search  414  20201227 08:11 
500€ Reward for a proof for the Wagstaff primality test conjecture  Tony Reix  Wagstaff PRP Search  7  20131010 01:23 
Wagstaff Conjecture  davieddy  Miscellaneous Math  209  20110123 23:50 
PRIMALITY PROOF for Wagstaff numbers!  AntonVrba  Math  96  20090225 10:37 