Fermats little theorem on permutations

lilcoley23@ho
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I'm looking at a card shuffle. And in shuffle would be the permutation (1, 2, 3, ..., n, n+1, n+2, n+3, ...2n) to (2, 4, 6, ..., 2n 1, 3, 5, ...2n-1) I know that it would take 52 perfect shuffles to get the deck of cards back in the original order. I think that I'm supposed to show this using Fermats Little Theorem.
Fermats little theorem says a p-1 ≡ 1(mod p) or a p ≡ a(mod p). Now I'm pretty sure that using the permutation from above plugging in for Fermat'l Little Theorem looks like: 52 ≡ 2(mod 2n+1)
If that is right I'm not sure how to show that I came up with that 52.
Can somebody please help?
Thanks you so much! Nicole
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lilcoley23@ho said:
… the permutation (1, 2, 3, ..., n, n+1, n+2, n+3, ...2n) to (2, 4, 6, ..., 2n 1, 3, 5, ...2n-1) …

Hi Nicole! :smile:

Hint: what is k/2 (mod 53)? :wink:
 
##\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...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top