12
$\begingroup$

For $n \ge 1$ an integer, let's denote

$u_n = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} 10^k$

That is $u_1 = 1$, $u_2 = 11$, $u_3 = 111$, $u_4 = 1111$, ...

My question is the following : Which of them are prime numbers ?

What I know so far :

  • If $u_n$ is prime, then $n$ is prime (meaning there's an obvious factorization when $n$ is not prime).

  • When $p$ is prime, $u_p$ can either be prime (2, 19 and 23 being the only examples I found so far) or not prime (all primes up to 67 with the exception of 2, 19 and 23). But I haven't been able to see any pattern.

Any thought is welcome. Maybe a sub-question would be to know whether there's a finite or infinite number of such primes. Thanks for your help.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You mean k starts with 0? see this form: $(10^(n+1)-1)/9$ which is equivallent to yours, if it helps... $\endgroup$ – tomerg May 8 '11 at 13:35
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Note: these are called repunit primes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repunit $\endgroup$ – Douglas S. Stones May 8 '11 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ @tomerg : Yes that's what I meant. Thanks for pointing it out. $\endgroup$ – Joel Cohen May 8 '11 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ @ Douglas S. Stones : Thanks for the reference. Also I see I had forgotten $u_{19}$ somehow. So it seems it's an open problem. This question was asked to me on an exam, so I thought there might be an easy answer I had overlooked. $\endgroup$ – Joel Cohen May 8 '11 at 13:52
11
$\begingroup$

OEIS has a list of the number of 1's where these are prime. It only has eight of them, the next is 317. So you could have looked for a while.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Factoring $u_{71}$ already took a considerable amount of time. I surrendered at that point. $\endgroup$ – Joel Cohen May 8 '11 at 18:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Joel Cohen: Primality tests are usually much faster than factoring. A primality test on that number revealed that it is composite in less than a millisecond. $\endgroup$ – Charles May 12 '11 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ @ Charles : You're right. At first, I was also looking for a pattern in the factorization (any obvious factor). I should have had switched to just testing primality after a while. $\endgroup$ – Joel Cohen May 12 '11 at 15:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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