This appears to be in direct violation of Carmichael's theorem.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Whovian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a perceived contradiction with Carmichael's theorem while analyzing residues of a sequence modulo 10^n. The author derives that for k coprime to 10^n, k^10^n is congruent to 1 modulo 10^n, suggesting that the Carmichael function λ(10^n) divides 10^n. However, according to Carmichael's theorem, λ(10^n) equals φ(10^n) = 4·10^(n-1), which does not divide 10^n. The author seeks clarification on the error in their reasoning, ultimately expressing frustration over the misunderstanding. The conversation highlights the complexities of modular arithmetic and the implications of Carmichael's theorem.
Whovian
Messages
651
Reaction score
3
In an attempt to prove a statement about the residues of a certain sequence mod ##10^n##, I've derived something which seems to be in direct violation of Carmichael's theorem. Of course, this can't be right, so can someone either explain what bit of my reasoning is wrong or why this isn't in violation of Carmichael's Theorem? First of all, let ##\lambda## be the Carmichael function, and let ##k## be coprime to 2 and 5.

First of all, notice that, by Euler's theorem, ##k^{4\cdot 5^{n-1}}\equiv1\pmod{5^n}## and ##k^{2^{n-1}}\equiv1\pmod{2^n}##. This makes it clear by induction that ##a\equiv b\pmod{4\cdot 5^{n-1}}\rightarrow k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{5^n}## and ##a\equiv b\pmod{2^{n-1}}\rightarrow k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{2^n}##.

Let ##n\ge2## and ##a\equiv b\pmod{10^n}##. Then, as ##\left.2^{n-1},4\cdot 5^{n-1}\right|10^n##, ##a\equiv b\pmod2^{n-1}## and ##a\equiv b\pmod5^{n-1}##, so ##k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{2^n}## and ##k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{5^n}##. Therefore ##k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{\mathrm{lcm}\left(2^n,5^n\right)}##, so ##k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{10^n}##.

Letting ##a=10^n## and ##b=0##, we get ##k^{10^n}\equiv k^0=1\pmod{10^n}##.

As this holds for all ##k## coprime to ##10^n##, this means ##\left.\lambda\left(10^n\right)\right|10^n##. (This should be obvious enough; I should be able to provide a proof if necessary.) However, as ##10^n## is not a power of 2, Carmichael's theorem tells us that ##\lambda\left(10^n\right)=\varphi\left(10^n\right)=4\cdot 10^{n-1}##, which doesn't divide ##10^n##.

Anyone know what's wrong here?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Whovian said:
Carmichael's theorem tells us that ##\lambda\left(10^n\right)=\varphi\left(10^n\right)=4\cdot 10^{n-1}##

Anyone know what's wrong here?

According to Wikipedia, for ##n\geq4## $$\lambda(10^n)=\text{lcm}\left(\lambda(2^n), \lambda(5^n)\right)=\text{lcm}\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi(2^n), \varphi(5^n)\right)=\ldots=5\cdot10^{n-2},$$ and everything is right with the universe?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Ah. "A power of an odd prime, twice the power of an odd prime, and for 2 and 4."

*Collides hand with forehead to indicate frustration with self*
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...

Similar threads

Back
Top