MHB Find Remainder of $2^{100}-1$ Divided by 1000

  • Thread starter Thread starter Amad27
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the remainder of \(2^{100} - 1\) when divided by 1000. It establishes that \(2^{100} \equiv 1 \pmod{125}\) and \(2^{100} \equiv 0 \pmod{8}\), leading to the conclusion that \(2^{100} \equiv 376 \pmod{1000}\). The sum of all possible remainders when powers of 2 are divided by 1000 is considered, with the importance of including additional powers like \(2^{101}\) and \(2^{102}\) noted. The discussion also touches on generalizing the findings to higher powers of 10. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the cyclical nature of powers of 2 in modular arithmetic.
Amad27
Messages
409
Reaction score
1
>Let $R$ be the set of all possible remainders when a number of the form $2^n$, $n$ a nonnegative integer, is divided by $1000$. Let $S$ be the sum of all elements in $R$. Find the remainder when $S$ is divided by $1000$.

Here is my working:$2^{\phi(x)} \equiv 1 \pmod{x}$ such that $(2, x) = 1$. So let $x = 125$.

$2^{100} \equiv 1 \pmod{125}$ and consider the cycle that:

$2^{100k + n} \equiv 2^n \pmod{125}$.

$\forall n \ge 3 \implies 2^n \equiv 0 \pmod{8}$.

So I got:

$S = \sum_{k=1}^{99} 2^k = 2^{100} - 1$ but the real answer also considers $2^{100, 101, 102}$ why? $2^{100} \equiv 1 \pmod{125}, 2^{100} \equiv 0 \pmod{8} \implies 2^{100} \equiv 376 \pmod{1000}$.

And then why do they just stop at $102$, what about $103$ etc??
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi,
As mathematicians love to do, I generalized your statement to any power of 10 greater than 0. I hope the following answers your questions; in particular the text in red shows why the set of remainders is exactly what you wondered about.

View attachment 4587
View attachment 4588
 

Attachments

  • johng003.png
    johng003.png
    14.6 KB · Views: 99
  • johng004.png
    johng004.png
    5.4 KB · Views: 103
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top