Re: order of an element
- From: mareg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ()
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:59:30 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1138567184.210755.212700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Chip Eastham" <hardmath@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>alihandam@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> What is the order of 2 in the group U(p) ,where u(p)the group of units
>
>Hi, Alihandam:
>
>I think this is essentially the same question you posted over in
>sci.math.symbolic. Because of the slight change in wording and the
>context of your earlier post on knowing order in the multiplicative
>group of Z/(p^k)Z of an element with known order n in Z/pZ, p an odd
>prime, I thought you were asking simply if n = 2 is possible, ie.
>can an element have order 2. Thus I asked you to verify that 2 has
>order 2 mod 3.
>
>The question of what order residue 2 has in Z/pZ, p an odd prime,
>is not trivial in general. Special cases, like Mersenne & Fermat
>primes, are easily solved of course.
Well at least you appear to understand the question - I am not sure
that I do!
If we are talking about the difficulty of calculating the order, then,
I would guess that the difficulty is about the same as factorizing p-1.
If you can do that, then you calculate the order of 2, or of any other
residue mod p, in polynomial time.
Derek Holt.
>Here is one measure of difficulty in asking what the order of
>2 is for general primes p: When is the order p-1?
>If a 1927
>conjecture of Artin is true, this occurs a bit less than two
>out five times. However:
>
>It's a well-known open question as to whether residue 2 is a
>generator of this cyclic group for infinitely many odd primes p.
>I say it is open, because it has not been proven specifically
>that 2 is a primitive root for infinitely many primes p. However
>assuming the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis, Hooley showed in 1967
>that it is so (more generally Artin's conjecture, on the density
>of primes p for which non-square a > 1 is a primitive root). In
>1987 Heath-Brown showed, without dependence on GRH, that of any
>three distinct primes, at least one of them is a primitive root
>for infinitely many primes p. So it is unlikely, but conceivable,
>that here 2 is one of at most two exceptions to a general rule!
>
>If you wish to understand this material for yourself, you should
>perhaps master the theorem that says the multiplicative group
>of Z/(p^k)Z is cyclic when p is an odd prime.
>
>
>regards, chip
>
.
- References:
- order of an element
- From: alihandam@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: order of an element
- From: alihandam@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: order of an element
- From:
- Re: order of an element
- From: Chip Eastham
- order of an element
- Prev by Date: Re: Show this matrix is not diagonalizable
- Next by Date: Re: JSH: Saying you're reasonable
- Previous by thread: Re: order of an element
- Next by thread: General Nonsense
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|