A result involving two primes I think is true.

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter caffeinemachine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Primes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a number theory problem involving distinct odd primes \(p\) and \(q\). Participants explore the validity of the statement that if \(pk = q - 1\) for some integer \(k\), then \(p^k \not\equiv 1 \,(\mbox{mod } q)\). The scope includes attempts to prove or disprove this claim, as well as related problems concerning the existence of primes satisfying certain conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that for distinct odd primes \(p\) and \(q\), if \(pk = q - 1\), then \(p^k \not\equiv 1 \,(\mbox{mod } q)\), but seeks proof or a counterexample.
  • Another participant provides a specific example with \(q = 31\), \(p = 5\), and \(k = 6\), calculating \(p^k\) and showing it is congruent to 1 modulo \(q\).
  • A participant suggests posting the actual problem being solved, which involves showing the existence of a prime \(q\) such that \(q \not | (x^p - p)\) for all integers \(x\).
  • It is noted that the claim holds true for primes of the form \(q = kp + 1\) for some \(k \in \mathbb{N}\) when \(p > 3\), referencing Dirichlet's Theorem.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the necessity of the condition \(p > 3\) and seeks clarification on the proof of the necessary condition \(p | q - 1\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the initial claim regarding \(p^k\) and its congruence properties, with no consensus reached on its validity. There is also a lack of agreement on the implications of the conditions related to the existence of prime \(q\).

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the dependence on specific conditions, such as the requirement for \(p\) to be greater than 3, and the need for proofs regarding the relationships between \(p\) and \(q\). Unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions are present in the discussion.

caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Hello MHB.
There's a number theory problem I was solving and I can solve it if the following is true:

Let $p, q$ be distinct odd primes. Let $pk=q-1$ for some integer $k$. Then $p^k \not\equiv 1 \,(\mbox{mod } q)$.

I considered many such primes to find a counter example but failed. Can anyone see how to prove or disprove this?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
caffeinemachine said:
Hello MHB.
There's a number theory problem I was solving and I can solve it if the following is true:

Let $p, q$ be distinct odd primes. Let $pk=q-1$ for some integer $k$. Then $p^k \not\equiv 1 \,(\mbox{mod } q)$.

I considered many such primes to find a counter example but failed. Can anyone see how to prove or disprove this?

\(q=31,\ p=5,\ k=6\)

\(p^k=15625=504\times 31+1\)

CB
 
CaptainBlack said:
\(q=31,\ p=5,\ k=6\)

\(p^k=15625=504\times 31+1\)

CB
Don't know if I should be happy or sad. This result was my best shot at the problem.
 
perhaps you might post the actual problem you're trying to solve?
 
Deveno said:
perhaps you might post the actual problem you're trying to solve?
Let $p$ be an odd prime. Show that there exists a prime $q$ such that $q \not |(x^p-p)$ for all integers $x$.
 
Let $p$ be an odd prime. Show that there exists a prime $q$ such that $q \not | (x^p - p)$ for all integers $x$.

The claim seems to holds true for prime $q = kp + 1$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$, $p > 3$, this progression is compatible with Dirichlet's Theorem thus $q$ is guaranteed to exist.
 
Last edited:
Bacterius said:
The claim seems to holds true for prime $q = kp + 1$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$, $p > 3$, this progression is compatible with Dirichlet's Theorem thus $q$ is guaranteed to exist.
That's exactly what I had in mind. My strategy didn't work though. See my first post in this thread. Do you have a way to make this work?
 
caffeinemachine said:
That's exactly what I had in mind. My strategy didn't work though. See my first post in this thread. Do you have a way to make this work?
Oh, wow, I apologise, the rearrangement in your first post threw me off. I don't have any idea right at the moment but I will think about it. It's an interesting problem.

EDIT: It seems the necessary condition is $p | q - 1$, so we just need an actual proof of that. But I still don't understand why it requires $p > 3$.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K