Determining if $973$ is prime
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Without a calculator, determine if $973$ is prime or not
I was given this question to solve. I know $973$ is not prime. I was told a strategy to solve whether a number is prime or not is to test all the numbers less than the square root of $973$
So I would have to test till $32$
and i find $1,7,139$ and $973$ are factors of this number. Basically, what I want to find out is are there any other strategies to solve this question? then i wouldn't have to check till 1-32 to see if any of the numbers are factors.
prime-numbers
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Without a calculator, determine if $973$ is prime or not
I was given this question to solve. I know $973$ is not prime. I was told a strategy to solve whether a number is prime or not is to test all the numbers less than the square root of $973$
So I would have to test till $32$
and i find $1,7,139$ and $973$ are factors of this number. Basically, what I want to find out is are there any other strategies to solve this question? then i wouldn't have to check till 1-32 to see if any of the numbers are factors.
prime-numbers
6
It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
â Hagen von Eitzen
Oct 25 '15 at 21:06
Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
â Emilio Novati
Oct 25 '15 at 21:10
1
And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
â Did
Oct 25 '15 at 21:25
1
One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
â Travis
Oct 25 '15 at 21:38
@EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
â mika
Oct 25 '15 at 23:54
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Without a calculator, determine if $973$ is prime or not
I was given this question to solve. I know $973$ is not prime. I was told a strategy to solve whether a number is prime or not is to test all the numbers less than the square root of $973$
So I would have to test till $32$
and i find $1,7,139$ and $973$ are factors of this number. Basically, what I want to find out is are there any other strategies to solve this question? then i wouldn't have to check till 1-32 to see if any of the numbers are factors.
prime-numbers
Without a calculator, determine if $973$ is prime or not
I was given this question to solve. I know $973$ is not prime. I was told a strategy to solve whether a number is prime or not is to test all the numbers less than the square root of $973$
So I would have to test till $32$
and i find $1,7,139$ and $973$ are factors of this number. Basically, what I want to find out is are there any other strategies to solve this question? then i wouldn't have to check till 1-32 to see if any of the numbers are factors.
prime-numbers
asked Oct 25 '15 at 21:04
mika
517210
517210
6
It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
â Hagen von Eitzen
Oct 25 '15 at 21:06
Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
â Emilio Novati
Oct 25 '15 at 21:10
1
And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
â Did
Oct 25 '15 at 21:25
1
One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
â Travis
Oct 25 '15 at 21:38
@EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
â mika
Oct 25 '15 at 23:54
 |Â
show 5 more comments
6
It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
â Hagen von Eitzen
Oct 25 '15 at 21:06
Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
â Emilio Novati
Oct 25 '15 at 21:10
1
And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
â Did
Oct 25 '15 at 21:25
1
One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
â Travis
Oct 25 '15 at 21:38
@EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
â mika
Oct 25 '15 at 23:54
6
6
It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
â Hagen von Eitzen
Oct 25 '15 at 21:06
It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
â Hagen von Eitzen
Oct 25 '15 at 21:06
Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
â Emilio Novati
Oct 25 '15 at 21:10
Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
â Emilio Novati
Oct 25 '15 at 21:10
1
1
And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
â Did
Oct 25 '15 at 21:25
And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
â Did
Oct 25 '15 at 21:25
1
1
One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
â Travis
Oct 25 '15 at 21:38
One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
â Travis
Oct 25 '15 at 21:38
@EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
â mika
Oct 25 '15 at 23:54
@EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
â mika
Oct 25 '15 at 23:54
 |Â
show 5 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$
Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that
$973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$
Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 24 at 10:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,
$(31)^2<973<(32)^2$
Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
, concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.
Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$
Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
139$
Hence $973$ is not a prime.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.
Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.
$2$: check the last digit even;
$3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);
$5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;
$7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);
$11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then
$a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$
In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.
It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$
Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem
$(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$
Hence, $973$ is not a prime number
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$
Wilson's theorem:
$p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.
Else, pocklington's test could be fast.
1
It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
â Cataline
Oct 25 '15 at 21:21
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$
Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that
$973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$
Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 24 at 10:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$
Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that
$973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$
Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 24 at 10:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$
Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that
$973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$
Another method is $973 = 1000-27$ which can be represented as $(10)^3-(3)^3$
Therefore, applying the identity that $(a)^3-(b)^3=(a-b)(a^2+b^2+ab)$, we see that
$973=(10)^3-(3)^3=(10-3)(100+9+30)=7cdot139$
edited Aug 24 at 9:39
Oscar Lanzi
10.2k11732
10.2k11732
answered Aug 24 at 8:25
naveen dankal
4,49321347
4,49321347
Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 24 at 10:01
add a comment |Â
Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 24 at 10:01
Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 24 at 10:01
Well found, but in practice that's about the only application case of $10^3-a^3$. In general, finding factorizable expressions can take a lot of work.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 24 at 10:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,
$(31)^2<973<(32)^2$
Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
, concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.
Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$
Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
139$
Hence $973$ is not a prime.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,
$(31)^2<973<(32)^2$
Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
, concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.
Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$
Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
139$
Hence $973$ is not a prime.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,
$(31)^2<973<(32)^2$
Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
, concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.
Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$
Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
139$
Hence $973$ is not a prime.
Not a clean method though but I used Fermat's factorization to find that,
$(31)^2<973<(32)^2$
Now applying the fact that a perfect square should end only in 0,1,4,5,6,9
, concentrate only on those numbers the difference of whose square and $973$ give these digits in the last place. Therefore concentrate only on those number whose last digit is either $2,3,7$ as the difference of squares of such numbers and 973 would end in numbers whose digits either end with $1$ or $9$.
Concentrating on such numbers and with a little bit of trial, we find that $(73)^2 - 973 = 5329 - 973 = 4356 = (66)^2$
Therefore, $973=(73-66)(73+66)=7cdot
139$
Hence $973$ is not a prime.
edited Aug 24 at 8:52
answered Aug 24 at 7:49
naveen dankal
4,49321347
4,49321347
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.
Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.
$2$: check the last digit even;
$3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);
$5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;
$7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);
$11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.
Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.
$2$: check the last digit even;
$3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);
$5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;
$7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);
$11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.
Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.
$2$: check the last digit even;
$3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);
$5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;
$7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);
$11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).
For small numbers, there is no much better strategy than trying all prime divisors up to the square root.
Use divisibility criteria for the tiny divisors.
$2$: check the last digit even;
$3$: compute the sum of the digits (e.g. $975to21to3$);
$5$: last digit must be $0$ or $5$;
$7$: subtract twice the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $973to91to7$);
$11$: subtract the unit digits from the rest of the number (e.g. $2585to253to22$).
edited Aug 24 at 9:34
answered Aug 24 at 9:29
Yves Daoust
113k665207
113k665207
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then
$a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$
In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.
It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$
Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem
$(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$
Hence, $973$ is not a prime number
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then
$a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$
In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.
It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$
Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem
$(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$
Hence, $973$ is not a prime number
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then
$a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$
In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.
It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$
Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem
$(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$
Hence, $973$ is not a prime number
Alternatively, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem where in if $p$ is a prime number and $a$ is any integer not divisible by $p$ then
$a^p-1 equiv1 mod p$
In this case, we can chose $a$ to be $2$ so as to keep things simple.
It's not hard to see that $(2)^10= 1024 equiv51mod973$
Therefore, on applying Fermat's Little Theorem
$(2^10)^97$ . $2^2$ $equiv(51)^97.2^2mod 973$ $notequiv1mod 973$
Hence, $973$ is not a prime number
answered Aug 24 at 13:09
naveen dankal
4,49321347
4,49321347
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$
Wilson's theorem:
$p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.
Else, pocklington's test could be fast.
1
It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
â Cataline
Oct 25 '15 at 21:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$
Wilson's theorem:
$p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.
Else, pocklington's test could be fast.
1
It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
â Cataline
Oct 25 '15 at 21:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$
Wilson's theorem:
$p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.
Else, pocklington's test could be fast.
If you're good at arithmetic, you can try this without a calculator $:)$
Wilson's theorem:
$p$ prime $iff$ $(p-1)! equiv -1 pmod p$.
Else, pocklington's test could be fast.
edited Oct 25 '15 at 21:28
answered Oct 25 '15 at 21:16
YoTengoUnLCD
7,30131856
7,30131856
1
It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
â Cataline
Oct 25 '15 at 21:21
add a comment |Â
1
It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
â Cataline
Oct 25 '15 at 21:21
1
1
It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
â Cataline
Oct 25 '15 at 21:21
It's $mod p$, not $mod p-1$. Also how exactly is someone supposed to calculate $972!$ in their head? If you know of some faster trick using Wilson's theorem, an explanation should be given.
â Cataline
Oct 25 '15 at 21:21
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1497404%2fdetermining-if-973-is-prime%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
6
It suffices to try primes below $sqrt n$, so here you need only test $2,3,5,7$ and the fourth test already succeeds. If $n$ were prime, you'd only go on testing $11,13,17,19,23,29,31$, so only $11$ instead of $32$ trial divisions ...
â Hagen von Eitzen
Oct 25 '15 at 21:06
Do you know the Erathostene's sieve?
â Emilio Novati
Oct 25 '15 at 21:10
1
And since the non divisibilities by 2, 3 and 5 are trivial, you are left with checking the divisibility by 7, which reduces successively to testing 973, 273 (take 700 away), 63 (take 210 away), bingo (table of 7).
â Did
Oct 25 '15 at 21:25
1
One should test all of the primes less than or equal to the square root of the number. Otherwise we would wrongly conclude, e.g., that $9$ is prime.
â Travis
Oct 25 '15 at 21:38
@EmilioNovati, if i had to guess Erathostene's sieve would go hand in hand with hagenvoneitzen point
â mika
Oct 25 '15 at 23:54