Is this line of reasoning correct?

I came up with this allegedly false theorem: Any number in the form $$\underbrace{111...11 }_{n \text{ times}}$$ and $$n \not = 1$$ Is a prime number.

Here is my "proof": if we had taken $$11$$,it is true. And for $111$ is true because it is $$100 + 11$$ And we know that there is no number that divides both $100$ and $11$,therefore it is prime.

So constructively, We see that at any step,there will be no number that divides both $$\underbrace{100...00}_{ n \text{ times}} \quad \text{and} \quad \underbrace{11..111}_{(n-1) \text{ times}}.$$ Where am I going wrong?

• You could also write $111 = 108 + 3$, and there is a number dividing both, $108$ and $3$. Just because you can write a number as the sum of two coprime numbers doesn't mean it's a prime. – Daniel Fischer Dec 23 '16 at 11:25
• So if were to determine whether 111 is prime or not what should i do? – Logan Luther Dec 23 '16 at 11:28
• For numbers that small, trial division. For larger numbers, it depends on how sure you want to be, maybe a probabiistic test like Miller-Rabin with enough bases is sufficient, maybe you need a proof. If you need proof, something slower than a couple of rounds of MR, like ECPP, APRCL, AKS is to be looked at. – Daniel Fischer Dec 23 '16 at 11:49

Hint: problem lies in the fact There is no number which divides $100$ and $11$.
There is no number which together divides $5$ and $17$ but still $5+17=22$ is composite