Do further prime numbers of the form $n^n+varphi(n)$ exist?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2













Can the expression $$n^n+varphi(n)$$ be a prime number for some integer $n>19$ ?




For $n=1,2,3,19$ and no other positive integer $nle 3 000$, the expression is prime. A further prime of the desired form must have more than $10 000$ digits. For $n>2$, only odd $n$ need to be considered because $varphi(n)$ is even for $n>2$



Moreover, I search a prime factor of the composite $283$-digit number $$f(133)=133^133+108$$ Probably , there is no prime factor with $20$ digits or less.







share|cite|improve this question














This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from Yanior Weg ending ending at 2018-08-28 08:53:10Z">in 5 days.


This question has not received enough attention.











  • 3




    You only need to check values of $n$ that are square-free, since if $p^2mid n$ then $pmid phi(n)$ and hence $pmid n^n+phi(n).$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Aug 9 at 16:54






  • 1




    Does not exist for $nle 2000$. Checking more currently. Edit: didn't see you already checked. I'll let it run some more and let you know.
    – Elliot G
    Aug 9 at 17:23







  • 1




    @Wojowu No, I just like to play around with expressions.
    – Peter
    Aug 9 at 17:50






  • 1




    No primes for $nle 5000$.
    – Elliot G
    Aug 9 at 18:22






  • 3




    $f(7069)$ is probable-prime! factordb.com/…
    – Peter
    Aug 9 at 21:32















up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2













Can the expression $$n^n+varphi(n)$$ be a prime number for some integer $n>19$ ?




For $n=1,2,3,19$ and no other positive integer $nle 3 000$, the expression is prime. A further prime of the desired form must have more than $10 000$ digits. For $n>2$, only odd $n$ need to be considered because $varphi(n)$ is even for $n>2$



Moreover, I search a prime factor of the composite $283$-digit number $$f(133)=133^133+108$$ Probably , there is no prime factor with $20$ digits or less.







share|cite|improve this question














This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from Yanior Weg ending ending at 2018-08-28 08:53:10Z">in 5 days.


This question has not received enough attention.











  • 3




    You only need to check values of $n$ that are square-free, since if $p^2mid n$ then $pmid phi(n)$ and hence $pmid n^n+phi(n).$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Aug 9 at 16:54






  • 1




    Does not exist for $nle 2000$. Checking more currently. Edit: didn't see you already checked. I'll let it run some more and let you know.
    – Elliot G
    Aug 9 at 17:23







  • 1




    @Wojowu No, I just like to play around with expressions.
    – Peter
    Aug 9 at 17:50






  • 1




    No primes for $nle 5000$.
    – Elliot G
    Aug 9 at 18:22






  • 3




    $f(7069)$ is probable-prime! factordb.com/…
    – Peter
    Aug 9 at 21:32













up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2






2






Can the expression $$n^n+varphi(n)$$ be a prime number for some integer $n>19$ ?




For $n=1,2,3,19$ and no other positive integer $nle 3 000$, the expression is prime. A further prime of the desired form must have more than $10 000$ digits. For $n>2$, only odd $n$ need to be considered because $varphi(n)$ is even for $n>2$



Moreover, I search a prime factor of the composite $283$-digit number $$f(133)=133^133+108$$ Probably , there is no prime factor with $20$ digits or less.







share|cite|improve this question













Can the expression $$n^n+varphi(n)$$ be a prime number for some integer $n>19$ ?




For $n=1,2,3,19$ and no other positive integer $nle 3 000$, the expression is prime. A further prime of the desired form must have more than $10 000$ digits. For $n>2$, only odd $n$ need to be considered because $varphi(n)$ is even for $n>2$



Moreover, I search a prime factor of the composite $283$-digit number $$f(133)=133^133+108$$ Probably , there is no prime factor with $20$ digits or less.









share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Aug 9 at 16:44









Peter

45.2k939119




45.2k939119






This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from Yanior Weg ending ending at 2018-08-28 08:53:10Z">in 5 days.


This question has not received enough attention.








This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from Yanior Weg ending ending at 2018-08-28 08:53:10Z">in 5 days.


This question has not received enough attention.









  • 3




    You only need to check values of $n$ that are square-free, since if $p^2mid n$ then $pmid phi(n)$ and hence $pmid n^n+phi(n).$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Aug 9 at 16:54






  • 1




    Does not exist for $nle 2000$. Checking more currently. Edit: didn't see you already checked. I'll let it run some more and let you know.
    – Elliot G
    Aug 9 at 17:23







  • 1




    @Wojowu No, I just like to play around with expressions.
    – Peter
    Aug 9 at 17:50






  • 1




    No primes for $nle 5000$.
    – Elliot G
    Aug 9 at 18:22






  • 3




    $f(7069)$ is probable-prime! factordb.com/…
    – Peter
    Aug 9 at 21:32













  • 3




    You only need to check values of $n$ that are square-free, since if $p^2mid n$ then $pmid phi(n)$ and hence $pmid n^n+phi(n).$
    – Thomas Andrews
    Aug 9 at 16:54






  • 1




    Does not exist for $nle 2000$. Checking more currently. Edit: didn't see you already checked. I'll let it run some more and let you know.
    – Elliot G
    Aug 9 at 17:23







  • 1




    @Wojowu No, I just like to play around with expressions.
    – Peter
    Aug 9 at 17:50






  • 1




    No primes for $nle 5000$.
    – Elliot G
    Aug 9 at 18:22






  • 3




    $f(7069)$ is probable-prime! factordb.com/…
    – Peter
    Aug 9 at 21:32








3




3




You only need to check values of $n$ that are square-free, since if $p^2mid n$ then $pmid phi(n)$ and hence $pmid n^n+phi(n).$
– Thomas Andrews
Aug 9 at 16:54




You only need to check values of $n$ that are square-free, since if $p^2mid n$ then $pmid phi(n)$ and hence $pmid n^n+phi(n).$
– Thomas Andrews
Aug 9 at 16:54




1




1




Does not exist for $nle 2000$. Checking more currently. Edit: didn't see you already checked. I'll let it run some more and let you know.
– Elliot G
Aug 9 at 17:23





Does not exist for $nle 2000$. Checking more currently. Edit: didn't see you already checked. I'll let it run some more and let you know.
– Elliot G
Aug 9 at 17:23





1




1




@Wojowu No, I just like to play around with expressions.
– Peter
Aug 9 at 17:50




@Wojowu No, I just like to play around with expressions.
– Peter
Aug 9 at 17:50




1




1




No primes for $nle 5000$.
– Elliot G
Aug 9 at 18:22




No primes for $nle 5000$.
– Elliot G
Aug 9 at 18:22




3




3




$f(7069)$ is probable-prime! factordb.com/…
– Peter
Aug 9 at 21:32





$f(7069)$ is probable-prime! factordb.com/…
– Peter
Aug 9 at 21:32











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













Since you found no prime with composite $n$ for $n leq 10^4$ the only explanation that I am aware of is that $phi(n)$ is very likely to have form $phi(n)=2r(n)$, where $r(n)$ is either a prime dividing $n$ or is divisible by a prime that also divides $n$.



So, further study of function $phi$ is needed, that is, to determine for which $n$ we have that there is a prime $p$ that divides both $n$ and $phi(n)$.



It could be that quite often we have $phi (n)=m(n) cdot p(n)$, where $m(n)$ is even and $p(n)$ is some prime dividing $n$, because then we could not have $phi(n)=m(n) cdot p(n) | (n-1)$ because of $p(n)|n$ and that would be in favour of Lehmer´s conjecture.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    This is a nice comment but not an answer.
    – mathworker21
    18 hours ago










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2877432%2fdo-further-prime-numbers-of-the-form-nn-varphin-exist%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













Since you found no prime with composite $n$ for $n leq 10^4$ the only explanation that I am aware of is that $phi(n)$ is very likely to have form $phi(n)=2r(n)$, where $r(n)$ is either a prime dividing $n$ or is divisible by a prime that also divides $n$.



So, further study of function $phi$ is needed, that is, to determine for which $n$ we have that there is a prime $p$ that divides both $n$ and $phi(n)$.



It could be that quite often we have $phi (n)=m(n) cdot p(n)$, where $m(n)$ is even and $p(n)$ is some prime dividing $n$, because then we could not have $phi(n)=m(n) cdot p(n) | (n-1)$ because of $p(n)|n$ and that would be in favour of Lehmer´s conjecture.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    This is a nice comment but not an answer.
    – mathworker21
    18 hours ago














up vote
0
down vote













Since you found no prime with composite $n$ for $n leq 10^4$ the only explanation that I am aware of is that $phi(n)$ is very likely to have form $phi(n)=2r(n)$, where $r(n)$ is either a prime dividing $n$ or is divisible by a prime that also divides $n$.



So, further study of function $phi$ is needed, that is, to determine for which $n$ we have that there is a prime $p$ that divides both $n$ and $phi(n)$.



It could be that quite often we have $phi (n)=m(n) cdot p(n)$, where $m(n)$ is even and $p(n)$ is some prime dividing $n$, because then we could not have $phi(n)=m(n) cdot p(n) | (n-1)$ because of $p(n)|n$ and that would be in favour of Lehmer´s conjecture.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    This is a nice comment but not an answer.
    – mathworker21
    18 hours ago












up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









Since you found no prime with composite $n$ for $n leq 10^4$ the only explanation that I am aware of is that $phi(n)$ is very likely to have form $phi(n)=2r(n)$, where $r(n)$ is either a prime dividing $n$ or is divisible by a prime that also divides $n$.



So, further study of function $phi$ is needed, that is, to determine for which $n$ we have that there is a prime $p$ that divides both $n$ and $phi(n)$.



It could be that quite often we have $phi (n)=m(n) cdot p(n)$, where $m(n)$ is even and $p(n)$ is some prime dividing $n$, because then we could not have $phi(n)=m(n) cdot p(n) | (n-1)$ because of $p(n)|n$ and that would be in favour of Lehmer´s conjecture.






share|cite|improve this answer












Since you found no prime with composite $n$ for $n leq 10^4$ the only explanation that I am aware of is that $phi(n)$ is very likely to have form $phi(n)=2r(n)$, where $r(n)$ is either a prime dividing $n$ or is divisible by a prime that also divides $n$.



So, further study of function $phi$ is needed, that is, to determine for which $n$ we have that there is a prime $p$ that divides both $n$ and $phi(n)$.



It could be that quite often we have $phi (n)=m(n) cdot p(n)$, where $m(n)$ is even and $p(n)$ is some prime dividing $n$, because then we could not have $phi(n)=m(n) cdot p(n) | (n-1)$ because of $p(n)|n$ and that would be in favour of Lehmer´s conjecture.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 22 hours ago









Right

4057




4057







  • 1




    This is a nice comment but not an answer.
    – mathworker21
    18 hours ago












  • 1




    This is a nice comment but not an answer.
    – mathworker21
    18 hours ago







1




1




This is a nice comment but not an answer.
– mathworker21
18 hours ago




This is a nice comment but not an answer.
– mathworker21
18 hours ago












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2877432%2fdo-further-prime-numbers-of-the-form-nn-varphin-exist%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

1st Magritte Awards