1
$\begingroup$

Statement 1: For non-zero natural numbers $a$, $b$ which are relatively prime, the Jacobi symbol $(\frac {a}{b})$

depends only on the congruence class of $a$ modulo $b$.

I believe this is false because I think it depends on whether or not $a$ and $b$ are $1$ or $3$ mod $4$. Is this reasoning correct?

Statement 2: For non-zero natural numbers $a$, $b$ which are relatively prime, the Jacobi symbol ($\frac {a}{b})$

depends only on the congruence class of $b$ modulo $4a$.

I think this statement is true by the quadratic reciprocity theorem. Is this reasoning correct ?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Neither statement is correct.

Counterexample for the first

$(41,26)$ and $(93,26)$

and for the second

$(7,20)$ and $(7,76)$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you please expand on why they're incorrect then? $\endgroup$ – user274933 Oct 25 '15 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ To be honest, I did not find these counter-examples by hand, but with the PARI/GP-calculator. Just calculate the jacobi-symbols and verify whether they are equal. $\endgroup$ – Peter Oct 25 '15 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ Ok but a Jacobi symbol (a/b) must be dependent on the congruence class of b modulo a, no? $\endgroup$ – user274933 Oct 25 '15 at 22:55
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but not only as the counter-examples show. $\endgroup$ – Peter Oct 25 '15 at 22:56
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how the counterexamples don't show that to be honest. Could you show me exactly how the counterexample shows otherwise? $\endgroup$ – user274933 Oct 25 '15 at 22:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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