Order of a mod m & quadratic residues

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kingwinner
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quadratic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concepts of the "order" of an integer modulo m and the definition of quadratic residues, particularly focusing on the necessity of the condition gcd(a, m) = 1. Participants explore the implications of this condition and seek clarification on its relevance in both definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the condition gcd(a, m) = 1 is necessary for defining the order of a modulo m, suggesting that if gcd(a, m) ≠ 1, the order em(a) may be undefined.
  • Others point out that the existence of a multiplicative inverse of a mod m is directly linked to the condition gcd(a, m) = 1, but the connection remains unclear to some participants.
  • There is a suggestion to explore the Quadratic Reciprocity Theorem in relation to quadratic residues, indicating a potential area for further inquiry.
  • One participant expresses a lack of background in abstract algebra and requests simpler explanations, particularly regarding the relationship between the multiplicative inverse and the gcd condition.
  • Another participant notes that while quadratic residues could theoretically be defined without the gcd condition, it becomes significant in many critical discussions within the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of the gcd condition for defining order and quadratic residues, with multiple competing views and ongoing questions about its implications.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the importance of understanding when the set Zn forms a group under multiplication and the conditions under which elements in Zn are invertible, indicating a deeper exploration of group theory may be relevant.

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0
"order" of a mod m & quadratic residues

1) Definition: Let m denote a positive integer and a any integer such that gcd(a,m)=1. Let h be the smallest positive integer such that ah≡ 1 (mod m). Then h is called the order of a modulo m. (notation: h=em(a) )
================
Now, why do we need to assume gcd(a,m)=1 in this definition of order? Is it true that if gcd(a,m)≠1, then the order em(a) is undefined? Why or why not? I can't figure this out. I know that the multiplicative inverse of a mod m exists <=> gcd(a,m)=1, but I don't see the connection...




2) Definition: For all a such that gcd(a,m)=1, a is called a quadratic residue modulo m if the congruence x2 ≡ a (mod m) has a solution. If it has no solution, then a is called a quadratic nonresidue modulo m.
====================
Once again, why is the assumption gcd(a,m)=1 needed? What happens when gcd(a,m)≠1?


May someone explain, please?
Thanks a million!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


(1) Z/pZ is a field if and only if p ...?
If gcd (a,m) is not 1, then can you always find such an h?

(2) Look up some stuff on quadratic residues (for example, Quadratic Reciprocity Theorem).
 


1) Hi, I'm sorry but I have no background in abstract algebra. Can you explain it in simpler terms if possible?
Is it related to the theorem "the multiplicative inverse of a mod m exists <=> gcd(a,m)=1"? If so, how?


2) Why do we need to assume gcd(a,m)=1 in the first place even before defining the term "quadratic residue"? Why can't we allow the case gcd(a,m)>1?

thanks.
 


(1) Yes, I assumed you have considered the set Zn = {0, 1, ..., n-1}, where arithmetic is done modulo n. When is this set a group under multiplication? If you don't know what that means - when does there exist a multiplicative inverse for an element in Zn? When will all elements of Zn be invertible?

You have identified an important theorem.
If the order is defined as h, ah = 1, then does it follow that a is invertible under multiplication? What is ah-1?

(2) Quadratic residues may be defined without this condition. However, this condition becomes important in lots of the critical work for this topic, so it can be thought to naturally be in this form - which is why I asked you to consider some theorems on this topic (see law of Quadratic Reciprocity).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K