Carmichael Numbers: Understanding Their Significance and Properties

  • Thread starter Thread starter thomas430
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers
thomas430
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone :-)

at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CarmichaelNumber.html it says that a Carmichael number is one which satisfies Fermat's little theorem:

a^{n-1} \equiv 1 mod (n)

for every choice of a which is co-prime to n, with 1 < a < n.

Why is the domain 1 < a < n specified?

A maths book that I'm reading says "Can it happen that n is a pseudoprime to all possible bases a? The answer is yes and such numbers are called Carmichael numbers."

Does this mean that the set (1,n) exhausts all possible bases a?


Thanks :-)

Thomas.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
thomas430 said:
Hi everyone :-)

at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CarmichaelNumber.html it says that a Carmichael number is one which satisfies Fermat's little theorem:

a^{n-1} \equiv 1 mod (n)

for every choice of a which is co-prime to n, with 1 < a < n.

Why is the domain 1 < a < n specified?

A maths book that I'm reading says "Can it happen that n is a pseudoprime to all possible bases a? The answer is yes and such numbers are called Carmichael numbers."

Does this mean that the set (1,n) exhausts all possible bases a?


Thanks :-)

Thomas.
Yes, because (a +bn)^{n-1} = a^{n-1} \mod n.
Therefore you do not have to check the coprime numbers greater than n. Can you see why that is so?
 
Last edited:
I see how that works.. and I expanded for n=3 to get a taste.

Thanks, ramsey!
 
Thomas 430: Does this mean that the set (1,n) exhausts all possible bases a?

We are only considering coprime numbers, so that n==0 Mod n is not considered.

By coprime there are only \Phi (n) (Euler totient function) such possibilities. For example for n=15 there are only \Phi(3)*\Phi 5 = 8 such numbers that form the multiplicative group.
 
Thanks Robert, that makes good sense.
 
thomas430 said:
Thanks Robert, that makes good sense.

Good! Glad to hear.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top