My answer to this question was 56 but a lot of my friends got 36 and I just want to be certain. Please don't shut the question down or anything.
-
5How did you get 56? – Kitter Catter Nov 26 '16 at 15:34
-
$56$ is the right answer – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner Nov 26 '16 at 15:34
-
I got 56 as well. – Bram28 Nov 26 '16 at 15:36
-
4"Please don't shut the question down or anything." What would really stop that from happening would be you telling us how you got $56$ by editing your question. – Arthur Nov 26 '16 at 15:40
-
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1614501/find-the-last-4-digits-of-20162016 – lab bhattacharjee Nov 26 '16 at 15:42
-
1http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/607829/get-the-last-two-digits-of-16100-and-17100 and http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1844558/how-to-find-last-two-digits-of-22016 – lab bhattacharjee Nov 26 '16 at 15:42
-
wolfram alpha says $56$ – auden Nov 26 '16 at 15:46
-
$2016\equiv16\pmod{100}$ – user346756 Nov 26 '16 at 15:59
6 Answers
$2016^{2017}=(2000+16)^{2017}$ so the last two digits of $2016^{2017}$ are completely determined by $16^{2017}$. The last two digits of powers of $16$ cycle between $16\to 56\to 96\to 36\to 76\to 16$. Since $2017\equiv 2\pmod{5}$ the last two digits are $56$.

- 7,965
- 1
- 23
- 35
Of course $2016^{2017} \equiv 16^{2017} \pmod{100}$.
Now $16^{2017} = 2^{4\cdot2017}$. Since $2^{22} = 4\,194\,304 \equiv 4 = 2^2\pmod{100}$, we can reduce the exponent modulo $20$, as long as we don't go below $4$.
But $4\cdot 2017\equiv 4\cdot 17 = 68 \equiv 8 \pmod{20}$ and $8\ge 4$. Given that $2^8 = 256 \equiv 56 \pmod{100}$, the last two digits of $2016^{2017}$ are $56$.

- 43,384
The last two digits of any expression like this are determined by looking for the remainder over a multiple of $100$. This is modular arithmetic, which you should investigate if you don't already know it. So to calculate the last two digits we can work "$\bmod 100$", casting out multiples of $100$. This also means that we can do this to the base, $2016$, and just consider the result of $16^{2017} \bmod 100$ . Note that the exponent, $2017$, is an operation count so we can't immediately modify this under the same rule.
It becomes obvious if you start calculating this that the result cycles in a fixed-length loop, which is the order of $16$ modulo $100$:
$$\begin{align} 16^1 &\equiv 16 \bmod 100\\ 16^2 &\equiv 16\cdot16 \equiv 256\equiv 56 \bmod 100\\ 16^3 &\equiv 56\cdot16 \equiv 896\equiv 96 \bmod 100\\ 16^4 &\equiv 96\cdot16 \equiv 1536 \equiv 36 \bmod 100\\ 16^5 &\equiv 36\cdot16 \equiv 576 \equiv 76 \bmod 100\\ 16^6 &\equiv 76\cdot16 \equiv 1216 \equiv 16 \bmod 100\\ \end{align}$$ which then repeats $\{56,96,36,76,16\}$ for all subsequent terms.
Indeed you must always get some kind of loop because there are only a limited number of values available, and once you repeat one value the subsequent results must also repeat. You'll see, in other answers, techniques for knowing how long those loops are without directly calculating them. We can get that, for any integer base, the order $\bmod 100$ must divide $10$, which is borne out here since $5$ divides $10$.
So we know that the value of $2016^{2017}$ depends on where $2017$ falls in that $5$-cycle. $2017 \equiv 2 \bmod 5$, which corresponds to $56$ in the cycle.

- 39,627
Another way by successive reductions of exponent with $2016=2^5\cdot3^2\cdot7$ $$2016^{2017} \equiv 16^{2017}\equiv 16(16)^{2^5\cdot3^2\cdot7}\equiv16(36)^{7\cdot2^5} \pmod{100}\\2016^{2017} \equiv 16^{2017}\equiv16(96)^{2^5}\equiv16(36)^4\equiv16\cdot16\equiv56\pmod{100}$$ Thus as the OP says the last two digits are $56$.

- 29,594
Note $\ {\rm mod}\ \color{#c00}{25}\!:\ 16^{\large 5}\!\equiv {2^{\large 20}\!\equiv 1}\,$ by Euler $\phi\ $ (or by $\,2^{\large 10}\! = 1024\equiv -1)$
So $\ \ {\rm mod}\ 100\!:\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\underbrace{16\cdot 16^{\large 5}\equiv 16}_{\begin{align}&\large \text{ true mod $\color{#c00}{25}$ and mod $4$}\\ &\ \large \text{hence true mod $100$} \end{align}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\color{#0a0}\Longrightarrow16\cdot 16^{\large 5N}\!\!\equiv 16\,$ $\overset{\large \times 16}{\Rightarrow}$ $\,16^{\large 2+5N}\!\!\equiv 16^{\large 2}\!\equiv 56$
Remark $\ $ The $\rm\color{#0a0}{green}$ arrow follows from the general fact that the solution set $S$ of $\,16x\equiv 16\,$ is closed under multiplication so, by an obvious induction, is also closed under powers (therefore $\,16^{\large 5}\in S\Rightarrow 16^{\large 5N}\!\in S).$ Proof: $\,x,x'\in S$ $\Rightarrow$ $16x\equiv 16\equiv 16x'$ so $\,16(xx')\equiv (16x)x'\!\equiv 16x'\!\equiv 16\,$ hence $\,xx'\in S.\,$ This monoid structure is often useful, e.g. see this answer where explain how it underlies the natural inductive proof (which above arises by multiplying $ 16^{\large 5N}\!\!\equiv 16\ $ by $\,16^{\large 5})$.

- 272,048
Work mod 100, of course, using $\phi(100)=40$:
$$2016^{2017} \equiv 16^{17} \equiv 2^{68} \equiv 2^{28} \equiv 2^{10}2^{10}2^{8} \equiv 24\cdot 24 \cdot 56 \equiv (24\cdot 4)(3\cdot 2 \cdot 56) \equiv (-4)3(12) \equiv -144 \equiv 56 (\bmod{100})$$
-
4Be careful using Euler's theorem here, since $16$ and $100$ aren't coprime. – Arthur Nov 26 '16 at 15:48
-
1No, Euler's theorem explicitly states that the base of the power has to be coprime to the modulus. If you want to use Euler's theorem in spite of that, you have to explain why you're allowed to do that. That's not number theory, that's proof writing conventions. – Arthur Nov 26 '16 at 17:22
-
1@B.Goddard: Maybe you could avoid the downvotes if you didn't keep that knowledge for yourself, but explicitly wrote it in the answer. – celtschk Nov 26 '16 at 17:23
-
@Arthur ??? I never said the words "Euler's Theorem." No matter how many details we supply, there is always someone who wants more. – B. Goddard Nov 26 '16 at 17:41
-
@celtschk I sketched the solution. If you want more details, you can ask. I teach my students how to work in non-prime rings. – B. Goddard Nov 26 '16 at 17:43
-
1When noting specifically that $\phi(100) = 40$ and immediately writing $2016^{2017} \equiv 16^{17}$, then Euler's theorem is the assumption that everyone who reads it will make. Also, 'I never said the words "Euler's Theorem."' is plain wrong, since you had just said 'and Euler's theorem applies' in your comment. That makes me even more convinced that you had Euler's theorem in mind when writing your answer. And as I keep trying to tell you, that doesn't work. It doesn't need much tweaking to work, I'll give you that, but as it stands, it doesn't. – Arthur Nov 26 '16 at 17:52
-
@Arthur Stop. Unbunch your panties. There was something you didn't know, get over it. – B. Goddard Nov 26 '16 at 18:27
-
1@B.Goddard I'm not yelling at you for keeping mathematical knowledge away from me. But speaking of unbunching panties, have a look at my first comment, which you can see is phrased as "be careful" rather than "you can't". You had to get your panties in a bunch and say "There is no problem here, Euler's theorem works here because I know it does". Except it doesn't. Euler's theorem only works when the base and modulus are coprime. In some cases when they're not coprime, you can get very similar results, but that's not Euler's theorem. – Arthur Nov 26 '16 at 18:46
-
@Arthur
Why didn't you say "Be careful when using Charmichael's Theorem" then? You went down "Euler's Theorem means..." rabbit hole and dragged me with you. I didn't say "Euler", you did. $\phi$ is used in other theorems besides baby Euler's. You seem to ignore the fact that my computation gave the right answer. – B. Goddard Nov 26 '16 at 19:06 -
All of the meat of your solution is hidden away in your equation $2016^{2017}\equiv 16^{17}$. While $2016^{2017}\equiv 16^{2017}$ is obvious, $16^{2017}\equiv 16^{17}$ is not. You need to use the fact that $\mathbb Z_{100}\cong \mathbb Z_{4}\times \mathbb Z_{25}$ as rings, and that the $\mathbb Z_4$ part of $16$ is zero, so $16^{\phi(25)+1}=16^{21}\equiv 16\pmod{100}$. If your intention was to give a hint, you should emphasize that the $2016^{2017}\equiv 16^{17}$ part requires further justification, and prompt the reader to supply that themselves. – Mike Earnest Apr 11 '23 at 19:32
-
@MikeEarnest "Should"? I'll decide what I "should" do. You write your answers. I'll write mine. I gave an outline which was sufficient because I correctly guessed the askers point of view. I just don't get you Karens that run about trying to make everyone write as dull as you do. – B. Goddard Apr 11 '23 at 20:37