This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
162=2⋅34. Obviously 1993−1399 is even, so our task is to prove 1993−1399≡0(mod34).
Use Binomial theorem, note 182+k≡0,124+k≡0(mod34) for k≥0. Binomial theorem is often useful when finding ab mod pk with k≥2, especially when a=pk±1 (as in this case), even more so when a=pnk±1 for some n≥2.
Let's examine the prime factorization of 162. It's 2×34. Clearly, 1993−1399 is the difference of two odd numbers so it is surely divisible by 2.
We have that an integer k is a quadratic residue modulo p iff it is a quadratic residue modulo pn for p some prime and n a positive integer. Since 1993−1399≡193−199≡0(mod3), then trivially 1993−1399 is divisible by 34.
And we're done.
Or are we?
However, we have yet to verify that 1993−1399>162. If we can show that 13991993>1+ϵ - and thus the difference >1399ϵ>162 - victory is ours for the taking.
@Jake Lai
–
Yea but 1993−1399 is not a square. Even if it was, you can't say anything about the thing being squared anyways, just the quadratic residues.
@Jake Lai
–
Your statement of the theorem was incorrect there: "k is a non-zero quadratic residue mod p iff k is a non-zero quadratic residue mod pn for some odd prime p and a positive integer n".
Even if you were correct with the statement (very hypothetical - it's incorrect, because e.g. 3≡02(mod3), but 3 is not a quadratic residue mod 9), it would tell you exactly that 1993−1399≡i2(mod34) for some i∈Z34, but the statement doesn't tell you i2 has to be equivalent to 0 mod 34.
If you think about it more, you can see your understanding would show 1993−1399 is divisible by arbitrarily large powers of 3, so is as well divisible by 399!, etc.
@Daniel Liu
–
"((A,p)=1,p odd prime)⇒((pmA)=1⟺(pnA)=1 for arbitrary n,m≥1)".
It's a consequence of Hensel's Lemma. If wlog m<n, one direction is simple:
A≡k2(modpn)⇒A≡k2(modpm), so (pnA)=1⇒(pmA)=1
The other direction can either be proven using Hensel's lemma or elementarily:
(A−k2)2=(A+k2)2−A(2k)2, so since (2k,p)=1:
A≡k2(modpm)⇒A≡((A+k2)(2k)−1)2(modp2m)
Then 1=(pmA)=(p2mA)=(p4mA)=⋯ until the degree is larger than n. From the first direction the result follows.
Using Hensel's lemma: let f(x)=x2−A. Since exists r such that f(r)≡0(modpm) (by definition of (pmA)=1) and f′(r)≡2r≡0(modp), then exists s such that f(s)≡0(modpm+c) for any 1≤c≤m (i.e. (pm+cA)=1). Repeatedly apply this, then apply the first direction. I'm not aware of any name for this exact lemma.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Observe that 162=81×2 so we need to have 1993≡1399 in mod 2 and mod 81.
Mod 2 is easy - 1993≡1399≡1(mod2). Now let's find each separately in mod 81:
(18+1)93≡1+(193)18≡1+12×18≡55(mod81).
Now do the same for 13:
(12+1)99≡1+(199)12≡1+12×18≡55(mod81).
So they are equivalent mod 162!
Now 1993>1399 because 132192>2⇒1990>(1390)(245). Trivially 139<245 as 13<25 thus 1990>1399.
162=2⋅34. Obviously 1993−1399 is even, so our task is to prove 1993−1399≡0(mod34).
Use Binomial theorem, note 182+k≡0,124+k≡0(mod34) for k≥0. Binomial theorem is often useful when finding ab mod pk with k≥2, especially when a=pk±1 (as in this case), even more so when a=pnk±1 for some n≥2.
1993−1399≡(1+18)93−(1+12)99
≡1+(193)18−1−(199)12−(299)122−(399)123(mod34)
Clearly (299)122≡(399)123≡0(mod34), so
≡1+(12)18−1−(18)12≡0(mod34)
We're left with proving 1993>1399.
(192)46.5>(2⋅132)46.5>(24)6⋅1393>136⋅1393=1399
Log in to reply
Have you verified 1993−1399>162?
Log in to reply
Proving 1993>1399 is enough. I've edited the answer, didn't notice I had to prove it was positive.
Log in to reply
Let's examine the prime factorization of 162. It's 2×34. Clearly, 1993−1399 is the difference of two odd numbers so it is surely divisible by 2.
We have that an integer k is a quadratic residue modulo p iff it is a quadratic residue modulo pn for p some prime and n a positive integer. Since 1993−1399≡193−199≡0(mod3), then trivially 1993−1399 is divisible by 34.
And we're done.
Or are we?
However, we have yet to verify that 1993−1399>162. If we can show that 13991993>1+ϵ - and thus the difference >1399ϵ>162 - victory is ours for the taking.
Because
13991993=1361(1+136)93≈136e93×6/13>136242=(13128)6>96>>1+ϵ
we hence have 1993−1399>96×1399>>>162 :D
Log in to reply
@Daniel Liu I put that theorem to good use :3
Log in to reply
I don't think you used it correctly. Where is the quadratic term?
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
1993−1399 is not a square. Even if it was, you can't say anything about the thing being squared anyways, just the quadratic residues.
Yea butk is a non-zero quadratic residue mod p iff k is a non-zero quadratic residue mod pn for some odd prime p and a positive integer n".
Your statement of the theorem was incorrect there: "Even if you were correct with the statement (very hypothetical - it's incorrect, because e.g. 3≡02(mod3), but 3 is not a quadratic residue mod 9), it would tell you exactly that 1993−1399≡i2(mod34) for some i∈Z34, but the statement doesn't tell you i2 has to be equivalent to 0 mod 34.
If you think about it more, you can see your understanding would show 1993−1399 is divisible by arbitrarily large powers of 3, so is as well divisible by 399!, etc.
Log in to reply
Wikipedia article. Can you inform me of the name?
I'm not sure what the name was, but it is in this part of aLog in to reply
((A,p)=1,p odd prime)⇒((pmA)=1⟺(pnA)=1 for arbitrary n,m≥1)".
"It's a consequence of Hensel's Lemma. If wlog m<n, one direction is simple:
A≡k2(modpn)⇒A≡k2(modpm), so (pnA)=1⇒(pmA)=1
The other direction can either be proven using Hensel's lemma or elementarily:
(A−k2)2=(A+k2)2−A(2k)2, so since (2k,p)=1:
A≡k2(modpm)⇒A≡((A+k2)(2k)−1)2(modp2m)
Then 1=(pmA)=(p2mA)=(p4mA)=⋯ until the degree is larger than n. From the first direction the result follows.
Using Hensel's lemma: let f(x)=x2−A. Since exists r such that f(r)≡0(modpm) (by definition of (pmA)=1) and f′(r)≡2r≡0(modp), then exists s such that f(s)≡0(modpm+c) for any 1≤c≤m (i.e. (pm+cA)=1). Repeatedly apply this, then apply the first direction. I'm not aware of any name for this exact lemma.