| |||||||||
In mathematics, a Fermat number, named after Pierre de Fermat who first studied them, is a positive integer of the form
where n is a nonnegative integer. The first eight Fermat numbers are (sequence in OEIS):
If 2n + 1 is prime, it can be shown that n must be a power of 2. (If n = ab where 1 < a, b < n and b is odd, then 2n + 1 ≡ (2a)b + 1 ≡ (−1)b + 1 ≡ 0 (mod 2a + 1).) In other words, every prime of the form 2n + 1 is a Fermat number, and such primes are called Fermat primes. The only known Fermat primes are F0,...,F4.
The Fermat numbers satisfy the following recurrence relations
for n ≥ 2. Each of these relations can be proved by mathematical induction. From the last equation, we can deduce Goldbach's theorem: no two Fermat numbers share a common factor. To see this, suppose that 0 ≤ i < j and Fi and Fj have a common factor a > 1. Then a divides both
and Fj; hence a divides their difference 2. Since a > 1, this forces a = 2. This is a contradiction, because each Fermat number is clearly odd. As a corollary, we obtain another proof of the infinitude of the prime numbers: for each Fn, choose a prime factor pn; then the sequence {pn} is an infinite sequence of distinct primes.
Here are some other basic properties of the Fermat numbers:
Fermat numbers and Fermat primes were first studied by Pierre de Fermat, who conjectured that all Fermat numbers are prime. Indeed, the first five Fermat numbers F0,...,F4 are easily shown to be prime. However, this conjecture was refuted by Leonhard Euler in 1732 when he showed that
It is interesting to note how Euler found this factorization. Euler had proved that every factor of Fn must have the form k2n+1 + 1. For n = 5, this means that the only possible factors are of the form 64k + 1. It did not take Euler very long to find the factor 641 = 10×64 + 1.
It is widely believed that Fermat was aware of Euler's result, so it seems curious why he failed to follow through on the straightforward calculation to find the factor. One common explanation is that Fermat made a computational mistake and was so convinced of the correctness of his claim that he failed to double-check his work.
There are no other known Fermat primes Fn with n > 4. In fact, each of the following is an open problem:
The following heuristic argument suggests there are only finitely many Fermat primes: according to the prime number theorem, the "probability" that a number n is prime is at most A/ln(n), where A is a fixed constant. Therefore, the total expected number of Fermat primes is at most
It should be stressed that this argument is in no way a rigorous proof. For one thing, the argument assumes that Fermat numbers behave "randomly", yet we have already seen that the factors of Fermat numbers have special properties. Although it is widely believed that there are only finitely many Fermat primes, it should be noted that there are some experts who disagree.
As of this writing (2004), it is known that Fn is composite for 5 ≤ n ≤ 32, although complete factorisations of Fn are known only for 0 ≤ n ≤ 11. The largest known composite Fermat number is F2478782, and its prime factor 3×22478785 + 1 was discovered by John Cosgrave and his Proth-Gallot Group on October 10, 2003.
There are a number of conditions that are equivalent to the primality of Fn.
...Lucas's theorem...Sierpinski number...
...Using Fermat numbers to generate infinitely many pseudoprimes...
An n-sided regular polygon can be constructed with ruler and compass if and only if n is a power of 2 or the product of a power of 2 and distinct Fermat primes. In other words, if and only if n is of the form n = 2kp1p2...ps, where k is a nonnegative integer and the pi are distinct Fermat primes. See constructible polygon.
A positive integer n is of the above form if and only if φ(n) is a power of 2, where φ(n) is Euler's totient function.
...Fermat number transform...random number generation...
...Fn cannot be a perfect power, perfect, or part of amicable pair, etc...
...brief definition of L(p,m) and G(p,m)...
External links:
References: