ϕ ( n ) is the number of positive integers less than n that are relatively prime to n .
Find the remainder when ϕ ( 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 ) is divided by 4036.
Bonus : Generalize for the remainder when ϕ ( 2 n + 1 ) is divided by 2 n .
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Having shown that 2 2 n ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 n + 1 ) , we can now simply note that 1 < 2 x ≤ 2 n < 2 n + 1 for any proper factor x of 2 n , from which it is obvious that 2 x ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 n + 1 ) . Thus the order of 2 is 2 n , as required.
Log in to reply
Thanks for the suggestion! I did sort of realize that the bounds on 2 d for d = 2 n made it impossible for it to be 1 modulo 2 n + 1 at the end of that long analysis, but I was unaware that I could use that to simplify the entire argument.
Why can't 2n|d, instead of d|2n at the end of the second paragraph?
Log in to reply
d is defined to be the smallest positive integer such that 2 d ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 n + 1 ) . (See the wiki link at the beginning of the solution for more information.) Since 2 2 n is also 1 modulo 2 n + 1 , we can write 2 n = k d for some positive integer k , meaning that d ∣ 2 n . If instead we had 2 n ∣ d , then that would imply 2 n ≤ d , which contradicts d being the order of 2 modulo 2 n + 1 .
I hate math😩
Log in to reply
Hey Mohd, it sounds like you’re frustrated about something related to math. Can you elaborate?
Oh gosh. I read it as find the quotient ...
What's the o r d function?
Log in to reply
The number o r d 2 n + 1 ( 2 ) is the smallest positive integer d such that 2 d ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 n + 1 ) . It is then true that whenever m is a positive integer such that 2 m ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 n + 1 ) then o r d 2 n + 1 ( 2 ) must divide m .
Please my friends help me to check my solution, is my solution correct?
First, factorize the number 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 = 4 1 0 0 9 + 1 = 5 ( 4 1 0 0 8 − 4 1 0 0 7 + 4 1 0 0 6 − . . . − 4 + 1 )
I consider the number 4 1 0 0 8 − 4 1 0 0 7 + 4 1 0 0 6 − . . . − 4 + 1 as a prime, but I don't know how to prove it.
so ϕ ( 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 ) = ( 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 ) ( 5 4 ) ( 4 1 0 0 8 − 4 1 0 0 7 + 4 1 0 0 6 − . . . − 4 + 1 4 1 0 0 8 − 4 1 0 0 7 + 4 1 0 0 6 − . . . − 4 ) = 1 6 ( 4 1 0 0 7 − 4 1 0 0 6 + . . . − 1 )
On division by 4 0 3 6 , in fact it can be factorize as 2 2 × 1 0 0 9 which 1 0 0 9 is a prime, we can do ϕ ( 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 ) ( m o d 4 0 3 6 ) by using Chinese Remainder Theorem. It is easy to show that ϕ ( 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 ) ≡ 0 ( m o d 4 ) , then let
ϕ ( 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 ) ≡ 5 1 6 ( 4 1 0 0 8 − 1 ) ≡ x ( m o d 1 0 0 9 )
5 x ≡ 1 6 ( 4 1 0 0 8 − 1 ) ≡ 1 6 ( 1 − 1 ) ≡ 0 ( m o d 1 0 0 9 )
x ≡ 0 ( m o d 1 0 0 9 )
this implies that ϕ ( 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 ) ≡ 0 ( m o d 4 0 3 6 ) , completes the proof
= = = = 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 4 ( 2 5 0 4 ) 4 + 1 4 ( 2 5 0 4 ) 4 + 4 ( 2 5 0 4 ) 2 + 1 − 4 ( 2 5 0 4 ) 2 [ 2 ( 2 5 0 4 ) 2 + 1 ] 2 − [ 2 ( 2 5 0 4 ) ] 2 [ 2 ( 2 5 0 4 ) 2 − 2 ( 2 5 0 4 ) + 1 ] [ 2 ( 2 5 0 4 ) 2 + 2 ( 2 5 0 4 ) + 1 ]
I believe it isn't hard to prove that 4 1 0 0 8 − 4 1 0 0 7 + 4 1 0 0 6 − . . . − 4 + 1 isn't a prime.
Log in to reply
Thank you! I think I should improve my solution.
I am trying to come up with a solution that uses elementary box principles because I don't feel the problem needs a number theoretic Perspective; I will edit this as soon as I reach the solution... .
I am a bit confused. I read the problem as saying that Phi(n) refers to the number of relatively prime numbers (with respect to n) that are strictly less than n. However whenever I looked up the definition on Wikipedia or Wolfram Alpha, the definition seems NOT to be strictly less than, but less than OR equal to n.
Furthermore in trying to solve the problem I used the Euler Totient function on Mathematica, which appears to use the definition that includes n, and thus when computing the remainder I always used ( EulerPhi[ 2^n + 1] - 1 ) instead of ( EulerPhi[ 2^n + 1] ). Then when computing the remainder with my interpretation of the totient function given by the Brilliant problem, I found that the remainder grew linearly like: Remainder(n) = 2n -1. Thus the answer I gave was 4035 = 2*(2018) - 1.
I did find that if I used just the Euler Totient function, NOT including my subtraction of 1, then the remainder always ends up being 0.
So my question is: Is the Euler Totient function as defined in the Brilliant problem the same as the ordinary one? Am I misinterpreting the phrase "number of positive integers less than n" ? Thanks for any help you all could provide.
Log in to reply
n is not relatively prime to n , since g cd ( n , n ) = n . Thus, the definition of ϕ ( n ) as "all positive integers less than n relatively prime to n " is the same as the definition "all positive integers less than or equal to n relatively prime to n . "
Log in to reply
Oh! That makes sense. I think I see now what my problem was. For whatever reason I think I forgot to include the fact that 1 is relatively prime to every n (not equal to 1), which accounts for the missing 1 I seemed to have. Thanks for your help!
@Ariijit Dey have you made any progress on your solution?
Note that,
2^{n}+1 | 2^{\phi(2^n+1)}-1
But since, ord_{2^n}2=2n.
We have, 2n | \phi(2^n+1).
Relevant wiki's : Order of an Element and Euler's totient function
Using the property that n ∣ ϕ ( a n − 1 ) for all positive integers a and n, and noting that :
ϕ ( 2 2 n − 1 ) = ϕ ( 2 n − 1 ) . ϕ ( 2 n + 1 ) (gcd of both arguments of the totient function in the RH side is clearly 1) we get that
(1) ϕ ( 2 n − 1 ) is divisible by n (using the mentioned property)
(2) ϕ ( 2 n + 1 ) is divisible by 2 (an established result if n > 2, which you can very easily verify by looking into the formula for computing ϕ ( n ) ).
This means that 2 n ∣ ϕ ( 2 2 n − 1 ) . The specific case follows easily by setting n = 2018.
I assumed it to be a Mersenne prime and then 2^ 2018 is Φ(2^2018 + 1). Then 2^2018 is definitely divisible by 4036. I'm not sure tho.
2 2 0 1 8 + 1 isn't prime. It's divisible by 5.
Yes then it was just a lucky guess.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Relevant wiki: Order of an Element
We tackle the generalization first. So we will prove that, for all positive integers n , we must have 2 n ∣ ϕ ( 2 n + 1 ) .
Let d = ord 2 n + 1 ( 2 ) . By Euler's Theorem, 2 ϕ ( 2 n + 1 ) ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 n + 1 ) , so d ∣ ϕ ( 2 n + 1 ) . We also have 2 n ≡ − 1 ( m o d 2 n + 1 ) , and squaring both sides gives 2 2 n ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 n + 1 ) . Thus, d ∣ 2 n .
Now, we will show that d = 2 n by showing that the other possible values for d do not work. Suppose that d = 2 n i.e. d is a proper divisor of 2 n . Then, 1 ≤ d ≤ n , so 1 < 2 d ≤ 2 n < 2 n + 1 . However, this means that 2 d ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 n + 1 ) ; if it were, then 2 d = 1 , which is impossible.
Therefore, we must have d = 2 n , so 2 n ∣ ϕ ( 2 n + 1 ) , and the claim is proven. ■
The problem is a direct application of this statement. If we let n = 2 0 1 8 , we get 4 0 3 6 ∣ ϕ ( 2 2 0 1 8 + 1 ) , so the remainder is simply 0 .
Note: There is nothing special about powers of 2; in fact, for any positive integer a ≥ 2 , we must have 2 n ∣ ϕ ( a n + 1 ) , which can be proven in the same way as we did above.