This appears to be in direct violation of Carmichael's theorem.

  1. Mar 20, 2014 #1
    In an attempt to prove a statement about the residues of a certain sequence mod ##10^n##, I've derived something which seems to be in direct violation of Carmichael's theorem. Of course, this can't be right, so can someone either explain what bit of my reasoning is wrong or why this isn't in violation of Carmichael's Theorem? First of all, let ##\lambda## be the Carmichael function, and let ##k## be coprime to 2 and 5.

    First of all, notice that, by Euler's theorem, ##k^{4\cdot 5^{n-1}}\equiv1\pmod{5^n}## and ##k^{2^{n-1}}\equiv1\pmod{2^n}##. This makes it clear by induction that ##a\equiv b\pmod{4\cdot 5^{n-1}}\rightarrow k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{5^n}## and ##a\equiv b\pmod{2^{n-1}}\rightarrow k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{2^n}##.

    Let ##n\ge2## and ##a\equiv b\pmod{10^n}##. Then, as ##\left.2^{n-1},4\cdot 5^{n-1}\right|10^n##, ##a\equiv b\pmod2^{n-1}## and ##a\equiv b\pmod5^{n-1}##, so ##k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{2^n}## and ##k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{5^n}##. Therefore ##k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{\mathrm{lcm}\left(2^n,5^n\right)}##, so ##k^a\equiv k^b\pmod{10^n}##.

    Letting ##a=10^n## and ##b=0##, we get ##k^{10^n}\equiv k^0=1\pmod{10^n}##.

    As this holds for all ##k## coprime to ##10^n##, this means ##\left.\lambda\left(10^n\right)\right|10^n##. (This should be obvious enough; I should be able to provide a proof if necessary.) However, as ##10^n## is not a power of 2, Carmichael's theorem tells us that ##\lambda\left(10^n\right)=\varphi\left(10^n\right)=4\cdot 10^{n-1}##, which doesn't divide ##10^n##.

    Anyone know what's wrong here?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 20, 2014 #2
    According to Wikipedia, for ##n\geq4## $$\lambda(10^n)=\text{lcm}\left(\lambda(2^n), \lambda(5^n)\right)=\text{lcm}\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi(2^n), \varphi(5^n)\right)=\ldots=5\cdot10^{n-2},$$ and everything is right with the universe?
     
  4. Mar 24, 2014 #3
    Ah. "A power of an odd prime, twice the power of an odd prime, and for 2 and 4."

    *Collides hand with forehead to indicate frustration with self*
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted
Similar Discussions: This appears to be in direct violation of Carmichael's theorem.
  1. Accelration Direction (Replies: 4)

  2. Direct Product (Replies: 13)

  3. Vector Direction (Replies: 5)

Loading...