mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-12-29, 12:03   #1
Stan
 
Dec 2011

22×32 Posts
Arrow Carmichael Numbers

Any constructive comments on the following statement, favorable or otherwise, will be appreciated.

If (a , m) = 1 and am-1 = 1 (mod. m) then m is either prime or a Carmichael number.

I believe the proof can be accomplished in 3 steps, supposing m is not prime:
1. m is square free.
2. If p is any prime dividing m then (p - 1) divides (m - 1).
3. There are at least 3 distinct primes dividing m.
Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-29, 15:20   #2
WraithX
 
WraithX's Avatar
 
Mar 2006

23×59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan View Post
Any constructive comments on the following statement, favorable or otherwise, will be appreciated.

If (a , m) = 1 and am-1 = 1 (mod. m) then m is either prime or a Carmichael number.

I believe the proof can be accomplished in 3 steps, supposing m is not prime:
1. m is square free.
2. If p is any prime dividing m then (p - 1) divides (m - 1).
3. There are at least 3 distinct primes dividing m.
I believe you might want to start your condition by saying:
For all a, 1 < a < n, If (a,m) = 1 and...

Here is a counter-example with a specific a and m, that break conditions 1 and 2 of your proposed proof:
a = 2
m = 5654273717
(a,m) = 1
a^(m-1) == 1 (mod m)
m is not prime
m is not a carmichael
1. m is not square free m = 1093^2 * 4733
2. none of the primes p dividing m (1093, 4733) have (p-1)|(m-1)

But, if you start your condition with:
For all a, 1 < a < n,
Then you are defining Carmichael numbers, or primes. So then, yes, it would definitely be true that the statement identifies only Carmichael numbers or primes.
WraithX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-29, 15:39   #3
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WraithX View Post
I believe you might want to start your condition by saying:

<snip>

But, if you start your condition with:
For all a, 1 < a < n,
Then you are defining Carmichael numbers, or primes. So then, yes, it would definitely be true that the statement identifies only Carmichael numbers or primes.
Note that this is not a proof, but a DEFINITION.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-29, 17:46   #4
Stan
 
Dec 2011

22×32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WraithX View Post
I believe you might want to start your condition by saying:
For all a, 1 < a < n, If (a,m) = 1 and...

Here is a counter-example with a specific a and m, that break conditions 1 and 2 of your proposed proof:
a = 2
m = 5654273717
(a,m) = 1
a^(m-1) == 1 (mod m)
m is not prime
m is not a carmichael
1. m is not square free m = 1093^2 * 4733
2. none of the primes p dividing m (1093, 4733) have (p-1)|(m-1)

But, if you start your condition with:
For all a, 1 < a < n,
Then you are defining Carmichael numbers, or primes. So then, yes, it would definitely be true that the statement identifies only Carmichael numbers or primes.
Many thanks WraithX for the counter-example. I need to amend the original condition to exclude a Weiferich prime being a factor of m.
(1093 is a Weiferich prime.)
Then I believe the statement to be true.

Last fiddled with by Stan on 2013-12-29 at 17:54
Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-29, 20:22   #5
Stan
 
Dec 2011

3610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan View Post
Many thanks WraithX for the counter-example. I need to amend the original condition to exclude a Wieferich prime being a factor of m.
(1093 is a Wieferich prime.)
Then I believe the statement to be true.
Sorry, incorrect spelling of Wieferich.

Last fiddled with by Stan on 2013-12-29 at 20:25
Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-30, 14:22   #6
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan View Post
Many thanks WraithX for the counter-example. I need to amend the original condition to exclude a Weiferich prime being a factor of m.
(1093 is a Weiferich prime.)
Then I believe the statement to be true.
Learn to read. I already told you that this is a definition.
Definitions are neither true nor false.

They are not subject to verification.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-30, 19:07   #7
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

1059610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Learn to read. I already told you that this is a definition.
Definitions are neither true nor false.

They are not subject to verification.
How do you (personally, not generally) distinguish between a definition and an axiom?

In my view, an axiom is a special case of a definition. By definition (!) axioms are true.

Therefore, and again in my view, at least definitions are true.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-30, 22:33   #8
BudgieJane
 
BudgieJane's Avatar
 
"Jane Sullivan"
Jan 2011
Beckenham, UK

24×3×5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
By definition (!) axioms are true.
Including the parallel axiom?
BudgieJane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-31, 01:47   #9
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

11101001001002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
How do you (personally, not generally) distinguish between a definition and an axiom?
A definition attaches a name (or label) to an object.

An Axiom makes an unproven (and unprovable) assumption
that a certain condition is true.

Quote:
In my view, an axiom is a special case of a definition. By definition (!) axioms are true.


Therefore, and again in my view, at least definitions are true.
Sorry, but wrong. Definitions are neither true nor false. A definition
does not constitute a testable condition.

In the instance under discussion, one simply attaches the label
"Carmichael Number" to a set of numbers. It makes no assertion about
the set itself. Saying "A Carmichael Number is a number such that ....."
simply attaches a label to a set of numbers.

Last fiddled with by R.D. Silverman on 2013-12-31 at 01:48 Reason: dropped sentence
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-31, 01:51   #10
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

164448 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BudgieJane View Post
Including the parallel axiom?
Yes. In Euclidean geometry the parallel axiom is assumed to be true.

An assumption that parallel lines satisfy a different assumption(s) simply
leads to a different geometry. The fact that one can get a different
system of mathematics from a different axiom does not make the
parallel axiom untrue in Euclidean geometry.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-31, 03:05   #11
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

3×72×79 Posts
Default

What about an Ansatz - is that just an axiom with Sauerkraut?
ewmayer is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carmichael numbers and Devaraj numbers devarajkandadai Number Theory Discussion Group 0 2017-07-09 05:07
Carmichael numbers (M) something devarajkandadai Miscellaneous Math 2 2013-09-08 16:54
Carmichael Numbers devarajkandadai Miscellaneous Math 0 2006-08-04 03:06
Carmichael Numbers II devarajkandadai Math 1 2004-09-16 06:06
Carmichael Numbers devarajkandadai Math 0 2004-08-19 03:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:46.

Mon Mar 8 00:46:23 UTC 2021 up 94 days, 20:57, 0 users, load averages: 2.33, 2.26, 2.26

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.