Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Given a prime $p$ and a set $\mathcal{S}$ of relations $q_i\rightarrow q_j$ iff $q_i^{e_i}\mid q_j^{e_j}-1$, can I choose an $n\in \mathbb{N}$ so that among the factors of $(p^n-1)n$ is a set of powers of distinct primes that satisfies the relations in $\mathcal{S}$?

Notes:

  • Once a power $e_i$ is chosen for a prime $q_i$, it is not allowed to vary - that is, $e_i$ is the power used in all comparisons. I prefer that it is the highest power dividing $p^n-1$.
  • Is there an algorithmic/inductive way of constructing a minimal choice with respect to total order?
share|improve this question
I don't understand the relations. Are the values of $e_i$ prescribed or allowed to vary? If they can be different for each $(i,j)$ pair, then the relations are trivial (just take $e_j$ large enough). On the other hand, if $e_i$ can only depend on $i$, then you will need to specify further conditions on $S$ (it certainly could not contain cycles). – Erick Wong Jul 1 '12 at 20:56
The values of $e_i$ are prescribed when the set of prime powers is selected - if you choose $q_i^{e_i}$, that is the $e_i$ which is always associated with that $q_i$ in every comparison. So, you are correct in that $\mathcal{S}$ cannot contain cycles. – Alexander Gruber Jul 2 '12 at 2:23
In that case, are we free to choose $e_i$ independently of $n$, or must it be the exact power of $q_i$ dividing $(p^n-1)n$? I would guess the latter, or else the value of $p$ seems irrelevant. – Erick Wong Jul 2 '12 at 2:32
The $e_i$ do not have to be the maximum power of $q_i$ dividing $(p^n-1)n$. I also think that the value of $p$ may indeed be irrelevant as a result, but I am not sure since I cannot prove that this can happen at all. If the case where I am allowed choose $p$ too can be proved, I would be satisfied with that. – Alexander Gruber Jul 2 '12 at 15:04

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Here's an attempt at an answer after the clarifications in the comments. As noted above, this is impossible if $S$ contains directed cycles (since $q_i \to q_j$ implies $q_i^{e_i} < q_j^{e_j}$). Otherwise, I claim that we can take $e_i$ to be any desired positive integer.

Since $S$ has no cycles, we can re-index the relations so that $q_i \to q_j$ only occurs if $i \le j$. We choose $q_1$ to be any prime, and then inductively choose $q_j \equiv 1 \pmod {\prod_i q_i^{e_i}}$, the product taken over all $i$ such that $q_i \to q_j \in S$. Then also $q_j^{e_j} \equiv 1 \pmod{q_i^{e_i}}$, so $q_i$ and $q_j$ satisfy the desired relation.

If need be, we can refine this congruence class so that in addition to every relation in $S$ being satisfied, we also have $q_i \not\,\!\to q_j$ for any pair outside of $S$ (provided we didn't choose $q_1 = 2$, $e_1=1$).

Having chosen $q_i$ and $e_i$, it remains to take $n = \prod_i q_i^{e_i}$ so that $(p^n-1)n$ contains them as prime factors. I don't see why $p$ plays any role in the question as currently stated, except that it has a chance of adding additional copies of some $q_i$, and you've said this is not an issue.

I'm curious to see if the construction can be adjusted so that $q_i^{e_i} \parallel (p^n-1)n$ instead of just $q_i^{e_i} \parallel n$.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. This is a good point (and a good solution). I think I need to revise my question somewhat, so that some factors must be in $p^n - 1$. I will think about this and add to the original post. – Alexander Gruber Jul 3 '12 at 19:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.