MHB Why do these conditions have to be satisfied?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conditions
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the process of finding solutions to the congruence equation x^2 ≡ a modulo p^n, particularly when transitioning from a known solution modulo p to finding a solution modulo p^2. It highlights that if a solution exists modulo p, it can be used to find a corresponding solution modulo p^n for n > 1. The conversation emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the new solution x_1 satisfies both the original equation and the condition x_1 ≡ x_0 modulo p. Additionally, it notes that while the existence of a solution modulo p guarantees a solution modulo p^n, the reverse is not necessarily true, as demonstrated by counterexamples. Understanding these relationships is crucial for solving congruences in number theory.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Smile)

When we have a congruence $x^2 \equiv a \pmod {p^n}, n=1,2,3, \dots$ , and we know a solution $\pmod {p^n}$, then we also know a solution $\pmod {p^l}, l<n$.

For example, we know that for $n=3$, the congruence $\displaystyle{ x^2 \equiv 2 \pmod { 7^3}}$ has the solution

$$x_0 \equiv 108 \pmod {7^3} \equiv 108 \pmod {343}$$

Obviously, $x_0' \equiv 108 \pmod {49}$ is a solution of $x^2 \equiv 2 \pmod {7^2}$.

Also, $\displaystyle{ x_0'' \equiv 3 \pmod 7}$ is a solution of $x^2 \equiv 2 \pmod 7$.We want to do the reverse.

We know a solution $x_0 \pmod p$ of $x^2 \equiv a \pmod p$, and we want to find a solution $\pmod {p^2}$.
Applying this at the example $x^2 \equiv 2 \pmod 7$, we have $x_0=a_0=3$.

We are looking for a $x_1 \in \mathbb{Z}$, such that:

$$x_1^2 \equiv 2 \pmod {7^2} \text{ such that } x_1 \equiv x_0 \pmod{7}$$I haven't understood why, when we have a solution $\pmod p$, and we are looking for a solution $\pmod {p^2}$, we are looking for a $x_1$, such that:

$$x_1^2 \equiv 2 \pmod {7^2} \text{ such that } x_1 \equiv x_0 \pmod{7}$$

Could you explain it to me? (Sweating)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I presume you are quoting a part of some book you have? You should snapshot the relevant page to give the readers a better idea of what is going on there (of course, only if you have a soft copy of it). From what I can exert from there, the relevant paragraph is merely a step of the whole calculations, which you have apparently omitted.

evinda said:
I haven't understood why, when we have a solution (mod p), and we are looking for a solution (mod p^2), we are looking for a x_1, such that:

Given a solution $x = x_0$ to $x^2 = a$ modulo some prime $p$, if you are looking for solutions of $x^2 = a$ modulo $p^2$, the first step would be to "sieve out" the natural numbers to look only for solutions $a \pmod{p}$ as

$$x^2 = a \pmod{p^2} \Longrightarrow x = a \pmod{p}$$

The converse doesn't hold, however! There is a lot of examples of numbers which differ modulo 2 and 4, for example. That is why I believe there is more to it than what you have posted.
 
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