Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

How many rationals of the form $\large \frac{2^n+1}{n^2},$ $(n \in \mathbb{N} )$ are integers?

The possible values of $n$ that i am able to find is $n=1$ and $n=3$, so there are two solutions and this seems to be the answer to this problem.

But now we have to prove that no more of such $n$ exists, and thus the proof reduces to: Proving that $n^2$ does not divides $2^n+1$ for any $n \gt 3$.

Does anybody know how to prove this?

share|improve this question
If 2|n then 2|2^n+1, therefore n is odd. – user16697 Jan 7 '12 at 20:05
@QED:Yes, I have noticed that. – Quixotic Jan 7 '12 at 20:07
It's useful to add it then. – user16697 Jan 7 '12 at 20:07
@Geoff: Click here, scroll to bottom. – cardinal Jan 7 '12 at 21:36
You tagged this contest math, what contest or preparation book are you talking about? – Will Jagy Jan 7 '12 at 21:43
show 1 more comment

3 Answers

up vote 9 down vote accepted

This was Problem 3 (first day) of the 1990 IMO. A full solution can be found here.

share|improve this answer
1  
All that I find there today is "The network path was not found." archive.org doesn't have it cached either. – Peter Taylor Jan 11 '12 at 12:24
I find the same here.The problem can be seen here – Quixotic Jan 11 '12 at 13:23
The cached version, seem to be accessible as of now. – Quixotic Jan 11 '12 at 13:41

Andre's modification of a wrong answer :)

If $n=3^k$, then

$$2^n+1=2^{3^k}+1=2^{3 \cdot 3^{k-1}}+1= (2^{3^{k-1}}+1)( 2^{2 \cdot 3^{k-1}}-2^{ \cdot 3^{k-1}}+1) $$

The second bracket is never divisible by $9$, thus by induction one can prove that $3^{2k-1}$ doesn't divide $2^n+1$.

Note: Since Geoff's answer was wrong, and this post doesn't make too much sense anymore, a simple observation:

If $n \neq 1$, then $3|n$.

Indeed let $p$ be the smallest prime divisor of $n$.

Then $2^{p-1} \equiv 1 \mod p$ and $2^{2n} \equiv (-1)^2 \equiv 1 \mod p$.

Thus $2^d \equiv 1 \mod p$ where $d=gcd(p-1,2n)$. But no prime factor of $p-1$ can divide $n$, since $p$ is the smallest one, thus $gcd(p-1,n)=1$. Hence $d |2$.

$2^d \equiv 1 \mod p$ implies now that $p=3$.

This proves that $n=3^km$ for some $k \geq 1$ and $m $ relatively prime to $3$. I wonder if the first argument can be modified for this case:

$$2^n+1=2^{3^km}+1=2^{3 \cdot 3^{k-1}m}+1= (2^{3^{k-1}m}+1)( 2^{2 \cdot 3^{k-1}m}-2^{ \cdot 3^{k-1}m}+1) $$

Since $9$ doesn't divide the second bracket we get that $3^{2k-1}$ must divide $(2^{3^{k-1}m}+1)$ and repeating I think we get $3^{k}$ divides $2^m+1$...

It is easy to prove that $2^m \equiv -1 \mod 9$ implies $3 |m$ (this follows from $2^3 \equiv -1 mod 9$ and $ord(2)=6$).

Hence $k=1$, and we must have $n=3 m$ with $gcd(3,m)=1$...

Now, lets try the same again.

Suppose by contradiction $m \neq 1$. Let $q$ be the smallest prime factor of $m$.

Then

$2^d \equiv 1 \mod q$ where $d=gcd(q-1,2n)$. But no prime factor of $p-1$ can divide $n$, excepting $3$, Hence $d |6$.

This implies that

$$2^6 \cong 1 \mod q \,.$$

Thus, the only possible values of $q$ is $q=7$.

But this is not possible since $2^{3m}+1 \equiv 1+1 \mod 7$, thus $7$ cannot divide $2^n+1$.

share|improve this answer
Hmm. Did you try $k=2$? – cardinal Jan 7 '12 at 20:32
Let $k=2$. We have $2^9+1=(27)(19)$. This is not divisible by $3^4$. – André Nicolas Jan 7 '12 at 20:33
@N.S.: Your argument, turned around a bit, will work to show there is nothing beyond $3$. We need only verify that $x^2-x+1$ is never congruent to $0$ modulo $9$. – André Nicolas Jan 7 '12 at 20:36
1  
@N.S.: Only a detail was wrong, the factoring idea was a good one. So modification, to show $2^{3^k}+1$ is not even divisible by $3^{k+2}$, sounds better to me than deletion. – André Nicolas Jan 7 '12 at 20:47
1  
@N.S.: My comment said that $x^2-x+1$ is not divisible by $9$. It can be divisible by $3$, and indeed is when $x$ is an odd power of $2$. Can you change things? – André Nicolas Jan 7 '12 at 21:35
show 3 more comments

I've translated the handling of the problem into a certain notation, which I find very useful for formal algebraic manipulation of exponential diophantine problems, and provide a solution in that formalism. The Woeginger-solution was already linked by André Nicolas so my proposed way of solving this is now only for that reader who might be interested into that -hopefully: much general- formalism. Here is the link so far. (I'm a bit lazy to recode the text into latex/mathjax here after the original fiddling with word/word-to-pdf. Maybe I can put it into mathjax after the weekend, if there is any interest at all)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.