![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Feb 2017
Nowhere
16A116 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2021-08-26 at 15:56 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3
503 Posts |
![]()
Another problem came up. The exercises deal with showing that a^x is congruent to 1 (or a) mod c, where c is a composite number:
a^21 == a (mod 15) for all a This is not a problem yet, but what I'm struggling with is if the composite has the square of a prime, such as: a^6 == 1 (mod 168) for all a where gcd(a,42)=1. 168 = 3*7*8 so it has to be shown that a^6 == 1 (mod 3), (mod 7), (mod 8). Mod 3 and 7 is no problem, but what about mod 8? 8 is not prime, so Fermat's little theorem cannot be applied. I noticed that apparently I could prove it by the fact that all odd numbers squared are == 1 (mod 8), so (a^3)^2 is as well, but that only works for mod 8. Also, a later question is: a^4 = -1 (mod 60) for all a where gcd(a,30)=1. So (mod 4=2^2) comes into it. Last fiddled with by bur on 2021-11-20 at 08:28 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Dec 2012
The Netherlands
33378 Posts |
![]()
The square of every odd number is congruent to 1 (mod 8).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Feb 2017
Nowhere
3·1,931 Posts |
![]()
You could simply check a^2 (mod 8) for all four possible cases of a (mod 8). Then a^6 = (a^2)^3.
Note that knowing a^2 (mod 8) means you know a^2 (mod 4). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary
25×72 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Let lambda(n)=lcm(,eulerphi(p[i]^e[i],) for n=prod(p[i]^e[i]) but if p=2 and e>2 then you can gain an additional factor of 2 on that place writing eulerphi(2^e)/2. And this is the best possible/smallest exponent what you can write for that a^lambda(n)==1 mod n for every gcd(a,n)=1. For example in your case n=2^3*3*7 and lambda(n)=lcm(2,2,6)=6 ps. maybe in maths you're using the unmodified lcm() when p=2 and e>2, the ugly case here is due to the fact that there is no primitive root mod 2^e if e>2.The proof of the best exponent is easy: just use that there is a primitive root mod m iff m=1,2,4,p^e or 2*p^e when p is an odd prime. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | ||
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3
50310 Posts |
![]()
I know, I wrote just that... ;)
Quote:
Quote:
So I assume they were after answers specific to that problem i.e. divisibility of of squares by 8 and 4. Thanks for your help everyone. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3
503 Posts |
![]()
And another one:
Show that It probably shouldn't use Wilson's theorem since that only comes in the next section in the book. I tried to write it as a fraction: All those factors cannot be reduced (mod p) since they smaller than p. And I'd be thankful for a hint in the right direction. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Apr 2020
70810 Posts |
![]()
It depends what you mean by "reduced". Try subtracting p from all the factors of the numerator, so p-1 turns into -1, p-2 into -2 etc, and see what that gives you.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary
25·72 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Freely use whatever theorems are in your head. Solutions without Wilson: About this problem (I know tex but not writing Latex here to save time): the precise problem: binomial(p-1,k)==(-1)^k mod p for 0<=k<p. the start was good, say if the answer is x then ((p-1)*(p-2)*...*(p-k))/k!==x mod p multiple by k!, you need: (p-1)*(p-2)*...*(p-k)==x*k! mod p, but in the left side: p-i==(-i) mod p for every i integer, so (-1)*(-2)*...*(-k)==x*k! mod p k!*(-1)^k==x*k! mod p, we can divide by k!, since k! is not divisible by p, so k! is relative prime to p. (-1)^k==x mod p, what was needed. There is a one line solution here: (p-1)*(p-2)*...*(p-k)/k!==(-1)*(-2)*...*(-k)/k!==(-1)^k*k!/k!==(-1)^k mod p [you need somewhat more knowledge to understand this]. Last fiddled with by R. Gerbicz on 2021-11-26 at 19:52 Reason: typo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Feb 2017
Nowhere
16A116 Posts |
![]()
Clearly binomial(p-1,0) = 1 = (-1)^0, so it's true for k = 0. Simplify the ratio binomial(p-1,k+1)/binomial(p-1,k) [you wind up with one linear term in the numerator and one in the denominator]. Check that the numerator and denominator are non-zero for k = 0 to p-2, and are equal and opposite (mod p).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary
25×72 Posts |
![]() Quote:
The k=0 case is trivial, so assume that 0<k<p, it is known: binomial(p-1,k-1)+binomial(p-1,k)=binomial(p,k) [for here you don't need that p is prime] furthermore: k*binomial(p,k)=p*binomial(p-1,k-1) is also true, here the right side is divisible by p, so the left side also, but 0<k<p, hence binomial(p,k) is divisible by p. From this binomial(p-1,k)==-binomial(p-1,k-1)==...==(-1)^k*binomial(p-1,0)==(-1)^k mod p, what we needed. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
k*b^n+/-c where b is an integer greater than 2 and c is an integer from 1 to b-1 | jasong | Miscellaneous Math | 5 | 2016-04-24 03:40 |
Sum of reciprocals of prime k-tuplets | mart_r | Math | 10 | 2009-04-05 07:29 |
Always an integer. | mfgoode | Puzzles | 18 | 2007-07-13 18:03 |
Sum of all integer digits of all primes between 1 an n | AntonVrba | Math | 2 | 2006-09-20 17:20 |
Primes for a mersenne integer DWT FNT | gbvalor | Math | 1 | 2003-09-08 16:05 |