MHB Can a Primitive Root of p Also Be a Primitive Root of p^2?

Poirot1
Messages
243
Reaction score
0
Show that if $x$ is a primitive root of p, and $x^{p-1}$ is not congruent to 1 mod$p^2$, then x is a primitive root of $p^2$
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: primitive root challenge

Poirot said:
Show that if $x$ is a primitive root of p, and $x^{p-1}$ is not congruent to 1 mod$p^2$, then x is a primitive root of $p^2$

We assume $p$ is an odd prime.

By Fermat, $x^{p-1}\equiv 1\pmod{p}$.
Thus $x^{p-1}=pk+1$. By hypothesis, $p\not |k$.
Let order of $x$ mod $p^2$ be $n$. Then $x^n\equiv 1\pmod{p}$, therefore $(p-1)|n$ (since order of $x$ mod $p$ is $p-1$).
Write $n=l(p-1)$.
So we have $x^n=(pk+1)^{l}\equiv 1\pmod{p^2}$.
So we have $lpk+1\equiv 1\pmod{p^2}$.
Thus $p|(lk)$.
Since $p$ doesn't divide $k$, we have $p|l$ and now its easy to show that $n=p(p-1)=\varphi(p^2)$ and we are done.
 
Re: primitive root challenge

caffeinemachine said:
So we have $x^n=(pk+1)^{l}\equiv 1\pmod{p^2}$.

So we have $lpk+1\equiv 1\pmod{p^2}$.

What is the logic in this step?
Also, note the result is vacuously true when p=2.
 
Re: primitive root challenge

Poirot said:
What is the logic in this step?
Also, note the result is vacuously true when p=2.
Hello Poirot,

By Binomial expansion we have $(1+pk)^l=1+pkl+p^2t$ for some integer $t$.
Now it should be clear I believe.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top