MHB Number of natural numbers that have primitive roots

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the number of natural numbers between 2 and n that have primitive roots, which occurs when m is cyclic. A number m has a primitive root if it is of the form 1, 2, 4, p^k, or 2·p^k, where p is a prime. To find the count of such numbers, one must determine the number of primes between 2 and n^(1/k). While the density of primes can provide approximations, it cannot yield exact counts, leading to the suggestion of expressing results in terms of the number of primes within a specific range. The limit of the ratio of these counts to n can be approached using prime density without needing exact counts.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :giggle:

How can we calculate the number of natural numbers between $2$ and $n$ that have primitive roots?

Let $m$ be a positive integer.
Then $g$ is a primitive root modulo $m$, with $(g,m)=1$, if the modulo of $g\in (Z/m)^{\star}$ is a generator of the group.

We have that $g$ is a primitive root modulo $m$ if it is a generator of a group, i.e. $m$ has a primitive root if $\mathbb{Z}_m$ is cyclic, right?

$\mathbb{Z}_m$ is cyclic if $m=1,2,4$ or $m=p^k$ or $m=2\cdot p^k$ for $p$ prime.

That means that the number of natural numbers that have a primitive root is $\#\{1,2,4,p^k, 2\cdot p^k\}$ for $p$ prime.

So we have to calculate the number of primes between $2$ and $n^{\frac{1}{k}}$ to calculate then the number of elements of the form $p^k$ and $2\cdot p^k$.

Have I understood that correctly? :unsure:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Looks about right. :unsure:
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Looks about right. :unsure:

To calculate the number of these primes do we use the density of primes? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
To calculate the number of these primes do we use the density of primes?
We can only approximate the density of primes.
So we cannot use it to find an actual number.
Assuming that we want a 'hard' number, I think we should express it in terms like 'the number of primes between $2$ and $n$'. :unsure:
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
We can only approximate the density of primes.
So we cannot use it to find an actual number.
Assuming that we want a 'hard' number, I think we should express it in terms like 'the number of primes between $2$ and $n$'. :unsure:

Actually I want to calculate the limit $\displaystyle{\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{a_n}{n}}$ where $a_n$ is the above number. So do we need the actual number to calculate this limit? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
Actually I want to calculate the limit $\displaystyle{\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{a_n}{n}}$ where $a_n$ is the above number. So do we need the actual number to calculate this limit?
No. I think we can use the density of primes to calculate that limit. :unsure:
 
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