Can Fermat's Little Theorem Simplify Prime Number Computations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter acarchau
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
Fermat's Little Theorem states that for a prime p, a^(p-1) ≡ 1 (mod p). This leads to the conditions a^((p-1)/2) ≡ 1 (mod p) or a^((p+1)/2) ≡ -1 (mod p) when p-1 is even. The discussion seeks to identify special cases where determining which condition holds can be simplified, minimizing computational effort. The Jacobi symbol is referenced as a potential tool for this analysis. Understanding these conditions can enhance the efficiency of prime number computations.
acarchau
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
From fermat's little theorem we have for a prime to a prime p : a^{p-1}\equiv 1(mod p). Assuming p-1 to be even we must have either a^{\frac{p-1}{2}}\equiv 1 (mod p) or a^{\frac{p+1}{2}}\equiv -1 (mod p). Are there any special cases in which it is easy to determine which of the previous two conditions holds without a lot of compution?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
thank you!
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top