mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Math > Number Theory Discussion Group

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-05-29, 04:48   #1
devarajkandadai
 
devarajkandadai's Avatar
 
May 2004

4748 Posts
Default A question of history

I may be wrong perhaps I am the first mathematician to discover the following property of polynomials:

Let f(x) be a polynomial in x ( x belongs to Z, can be a Gaussian integer, or be a square matrix in which the elements are rational integers or Gaussian integers).

Then f(x + k*f(x)) = = 0 mod(f(x)).
devarajkandadai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-05-29, 07:36   #2
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

26·34 Posts
Default

x+k*f(x) == x (mod f(x))

==> f(x+k*f(x)) == f(x) (mod f(x)). QED

Looks like a trivial result.
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-05-29, 08:02   #3
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

2×37×149 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
x+k*f(x) == x (mod f(x))

==> f(x+k*f(x)) == f(x) (mod f(x)). QED

Looks like a trivial result.
Except at roots of f(x).
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-05-30, 10:43   #4
devarajkandadai
 
devarajkandadai's Avatar
 
May 2004

22×79 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
x+k*f(x) == x (mod f(x))

==> f(x+k*f(x)) == f(x) (mod f(x)). QED

Looks like a trivial result.
Agreed the result is not earth-shaking. However it has a couple of interesting applications, one of which I would like to mention in this post:

Indirect primality testing. Let f(x) be a quadratic polynomial in x ( x belongs to Z).
For example let f(x) be x^2 + x +1. All x, other than those generated by 1 + 3k, 2 + 7k, 3 + 13k, 4 + 3k and 4 + 7k, 5 + 31k.....are such that f(x) is prime which need not be tested for primality. Unfortunately this is true only upto quadratic level.
devarajkandadai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-05-30, 13:16   #5
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

2×33×5×19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by devarajkandadai View Post
I may be wrong perhaps I am the first mathematician to discover the following property of polynomials:

Let f(x) be a polynomial in x ( x belongs to Z, can be a Gaussian integer, or be a square matrix in which the elements are rational integers or Gaussian integers).

Then f(x + k*f(x)) = = 0 mod(f(x)).
Since A - B is an algebraic factor of A^n - B^n for every non-negative integer n, we have that if f(x) is a polynomial in K[x], where K is a field, then

A - B is an algebraic factor of f(A) - f(B).

I imagine this has been known for centuries; I'm pretty sure Isaac Newton knew it, certainly for the cases where K is the rational or real numbers. Of course, the result continues to hold in cases where K is not a field, but I'm not sure offhand just how far you can push it. If K is a commutative ring (with 1) I don't see any reason it wouldn't work.

In particular, substituting x + k*f(x) for A and x for B, k*f(x) is an algebraic factor of f(x + k*f(x)) - f(x).
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-06-01, 06:05   #6
devarajkandadai
 
devarajkandadai's Avatar
 
May 2004

4748 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
Since A - B is an algebraic factor of A^n - B^n for every non-negative integer n, we have that if f(x) is a polynomial in K[x], where K is a field, then

A - B is an algebraic factor of f(A) - f(B).

I imagine this has been known for centuries; I'm pretty sure Isaac Newton knew it, certainly for the cases where K is the rational or real numbers. Of course, the result continues to hold in cases where K is not a field, but I'm not sure offhand just how far you can push it. If K is a commutative ring (with 1) I don't see any reason it wouldn't work.

In particular, substituting x + k*f(x) for A and x for B, k*f(x) is an algebraic factor of f(x + k*f(x)) - f(x).
Merely saying " I am pretty sure Isaac....." will not do; can you quote any paper or book where in either Newton, Euler or any mathematician has mentioned this result?
devarajkandadai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-06-01, 08:55   #7
bhelmes
 
bhelmes's Avatar
 
Mar 2016

32×41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by devarajkandadai View Post
I may be wrong perhaps I am the first mathematician to discover the following property of polynomials:

Let f(x) be a polynomial in x ( x belongs to Z, can be a Gaussian integer, or be a square matrix in which the elements are rational integers or Gaussian integers).

Then f(x + k*f(x)) = = 0 mod(f(x)).
You are not the first mathematician,
i discovered it also, a little bit earlier than you, may be 10 years ago:
see http://devalco.de/quadr_Sieb_x%5E2+1.php#1 ,
and i do not claim to be the first.

But it is indeed a good basic idea for prime generators,
if you add the proof :
f(x - k*f(x)) = = 0 mod(f(x)) (or k element Z)
you have a good criteria for prime generators.

Have a look at http://devalco.de/#106
and you will discover a little bit more of prime numbers
or prime generators in quadratic progression.

Nice Greetings from the primes
Bernhard
bhelmes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-06-01, 11:13   #8
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

2B1216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by devarajkandadai View Post
Merely saying " I am pretty sure Isaac....." will not do; can you quote any paper or book where in either Newton, Euler or any mathematician has mentioned this result?
The result is so trivial that any self-respecting mathematician would not even think of publishing it --- especially so because it is incorrect as you first stated it (see my subsequent correction).
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-06-01, 13:15   #9
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

2·33·5·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by devarajkandadai View Post
Merely saying " I am pretty sure Isaac....." will not do; can you quote any paper or book where in either Newton, Euler or any mathematician has mentioned this result?
This will not do. You are making a claim of priority. It is incumbent on you to check the literature. I suggested Newton, whose work with polynomials is well known, both WRT derivatives of powers and "Newton's identities," but you refused to look. It is reasonable to conclude that won't look because you're afraid of what you might find.

I do know that in high school algebra, one of the exercises for learning mathematical induction was to prove that,

for any positive integer n, a - b divides a^n - b^n.

And while I will not claim that back then we were doing our homework with a stylus on damp clay, I will say that it was quite a number of years ago. So a result of which (a corrected form of) the one you claim is a trivial corollary, was relegated to the exercises in high school algebra long since. No mathematician worthy of the name would presume to claim it as an original result.

The result I mention is also often used to prove the formula for summing a geometric series. That's been known for a while, too.

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2017-06-01 at 13:15
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
History ET_ Operazione Doppi Mersennes 15 2012-09-19 13:11
Strange history lidocorc PrimeNet 1 2008-12-21 16:21
M727 ... History petrw1 PrimeNet 3 2007-11-11 15:37
History Greenbank Octoproth Search 1 2007-02-16 23:41
History of 3*2^n-1 Citrix 3*2^n-1 Search 2 2006-11-16 00:13

All times are UTC. The time now is 03:15.


Fri Dec 3 03:15:23 UTC 2021 up 132 days, 21:44, 0 users, load averages: 1.63, 1.50, 1.35

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.