Re: x^n + y^n (mod p)
- From: quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:49:59 -0400
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:02:57 GMT, Gerry Myerson
<gerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <67glh3h7h39d6kd8e2svlh23ki3h3boukm@xxxxxxx>,
quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx> wrote [with a minor correction]:
Given a positive integer n, and a prime p, define a map
f : Z_p x Z_p --> Z_p
by
f(x,y) = x^n + y^n
Two conjectures ...
Conjecture (1):
For each positive integer n>2, there is at least one prime p such that
f is not surjective.
Let p be a prime congruent to 1 (mod n), say, p = d n + 1.
Then there are only d (non-zero) n-th powers (mod p),
Yes. Assume p = d n + 1. Letting r be a primitive root (mod p), the
nonzero n'th powers (mod p) are r^n, r^(2n), r^(3n), ..., r^(d*n).
so only about d^2 values of f.
Right. In any case, at most d^2 + d + 1.
Now it's surely true (though maybe not yet proved) that d can be
taken smaller than n, so d^2 < p,
In other words, the smallest prime p in the arithmetic progression
n + 1, 2*n + 1, 3*n + 1, ...
has the form p = d n + 1 where d^2 + d + 1 < n.
Hmmm ...
For a given n, I guess that's likely on probabilistic grounds, by
virtue of the density of primes, and the lack of favoritism (mod n)
(as long as the residue (mod n) is relatively prime to n).
But is that probabilistic argument strong enough to suggest that it
should be true for all n?
Let me try ...
Assuming no bias for or against primes in the sequence
n + 1, 2 n + 1, 3 n + 1, ..., a n + 1
where a is the greatest integer such that a^2 + a + 1 < n, the
probability that at least one of them is prime should on the order of
1 - (1 - (1/ln(n)))^(sqrt(n))
Assuming independence as n varies, the (heuristic) probability that
conjecture (1) is false is the infinite product
Prod ( (1 - (1/ln(n)))^(sqrt(n)) )
for n from 3 to infinity.
So we would like to show the above product converges to 0.
But, for large n, each term of the product has order
(1/e)^(sqrt(n)/ln(n))
which is less than 1/e (and in fact, approaches 0),
hence the infinite product is 0.
Thus, based on the above probabilistic considerations, it's likely
that conjecture (1) is true.
I'm not so good on this analytic/probability oriented reasoning, so if
the above heuristic argument is not correct, please advise.
so f is not surjective.
Very nice.
Conjecture (2):
For each positive integer n, and all sufficiently large primes p
(depending on n), f is surjective.
This is true, and follows from Weil's bounds on exponential
sums. I think it's known to be true for p > N_0(n), where
N_0(n) is something like n^4. I'll see if I can chase up some
references. I vaguely recall there was a paper by Chowla.
Thanks.
But I'm a little surprised that two innocent congruence related
questions on my part (conjectures (1) and (2)) end up as apparently
difficult results. I thought they would both be more elementary.
To summarize ...
Conjecture (1) appears true on probabilistic grounds, but it may be
the case that no proof is presently achievable (with today's math).
Conjecture (2) is true using some (possibly advanced) asymptotic
results in analytic number theory.
Is the above a reasonable "bottom-line" summary?
quasi
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: x^n + y^n (mod p)
- From: Gerry Myerson
- Re: x^n + y^n (mod p)
- References:
- x^n + y^n (mod p)
- From: quasi
- Re: x^n + y^n (mod p)
- From: Gerry Myerson
- x^n + y^n (mod p)
- Prev by Date: Re: Differentiation question...
- Next by Date: Re: x^n + y^n (mod p)
- Previous by thread: Re: x^n + y^n (mod p)
- Next by thread: Re: x^n + y^n (mod p)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|