If this proposition is false, please give at least 3 counter-examples, and try to modify the proposition so that it becomes true.
If the proposition is true, please try to prove this even more general proposition:
If Bn−1 is divisible by a prime number p such that Bm−1 is not divisible by p for all m<n, then Bn−1+1 is also divisible by p.
.
Note: This question is actually related to numeral bases.
If B+1 is divisible by a prime p then the reciprocal of p in base B has a repeating mantissa of 2 digits.
If B2−1 is divisible by a prime p (and B−1 is not) then the reciprocal of p in base B has a repeating mantissa of 2 digits.
I'm trying to show that these two propositions are kind of equivalent.
More generally: If Bn−1 is divisible by a prime p (and Bm−1 is not, for all m<n) then the reciprocal of p in base B has a repeating mantissa of n digits.
And we have: n=p−1k for a positive integer k.
(I've found these things myself so maybe I've made some mistakes.)
.
Edit: Then what about this generalization?
If B2n−1 is divisible by a prime number p such that Bm−1 is not divisible by p for all m<2n, then Bn+1 is also divisible by p.
No comments:
Post a Comment