Just to be clear, close observation will show that this is not the Fermat numbers.
I was reading some things (link) when I came across the footnote on page 21, which states the following:
$$F_1=2+1\to prime$$
$$F_2=2^2+1\to prime$$
$$F_3=2^{2^2}+1\to prime$$
$$F_4=2^{2^{2^{2}}}+1\to ?$$
And so on. Amazingly, it has been found that $F_1$ through $F_{15}$ to be prime, but, at $F_{16}$, the answer is no longer prime (proven?).
$$F_{16}=(2\uparrow\uparrow16)+1\to composite$$
But how do you prove this? $F_{16}$ is so large, that I cannot proceed to manually attempt at factoring it, and, most likely, many of its factors will have hundreds (or more) digits!
Interestingly, people have pointed out that there are only $5$ known Fermat numbers are prime, and so, I have come to a different conclusion.
Numbers such as $F_{15}$ or $F_{14}$ are unknown as to whether they are prime or composite. However, it has been proven, somehow, that $F_{16}$ is composite.
But how?
The number $N = 2^k + 1$ is composite when $k$ has an odd factor $p$, since then $2^p + 1$ will divide $N$.
The converse is false. The first five possibilities, corresponding to $k = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16$ are prime. Euler showed the next one isn't. No more primes of this form have been found. Some of the next ones have been proved to be composite (but not necessarily factored).
The wikipedia page is a reliable reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat_number#Primality_of_Fermat_numbers