0

I tried to solve this congruence, but I don't understand how to find “?”

$2^{11} \equiv 1 \pmod{23}$ so

$53x \equiv ~? \pmod{11}$

I know that “?” is equal to $8$, but I don't know how to find it, thank you!

2 Answers2

0

Finding the ???, or equivalently finding $y$ such that $2^y\equiv3\pmod{23}$, is an instance of a discrete logarithm problem. There is no universal efficient method for solving it. Thankfully $11$ is a small number, so you can brute force it.


If you want to see a trick then an ad hoc answer can be derived from the observation that $$ 3^3=27\equiv 2^2\pmod{23}. $$ Leaving that as a hint :-)

Plug in $3=2^y$, and solve $y$ from the resulting congruence modulo $11$.


Observations like the one above are the basis of an algorithm called index calculus. For a (barely) pen-and-pencil-doable example of index calculus you may take a look at this answer of mine, partly prepared for referrals like this. That example works in the field $\Bbb{F}_{2^{10}}$. Meaning that the arithmetic is done modulo a polynomial (with coefficients modulo two) instead of modulo some prime $p$ like here. The principles are the same.

Jyrki Lahtonen
  • 133,153
0

$$2^8\equiv 3 \mod23$$

$$2^{11}\equiv 1 \mod23$$

$$2^{11t}\times2^{8}\equiv 3 \mod23$$

$$2^{53x}\equiv 2^{11t+8}\equiv 3 \mod23$$

$$53x\equiv 8 \mod11$$

$$9x\equiv 8 \mod11$$

$$x\equiv 7 \mod11$$

$$x=7+11k$$

where $k \in Z$

Lion Heart
  • 7,073
  • 1
    This does not answer the question. OP already knows that $,n=8,$ works for $,2^n\equiv 3.,$ You simply verify that this works (which is trivial modular arithmetic), But OP wants to know how to find such an $,n,,$ which is difficult in general. – Bill Dubuque Nov 22 '20 at 12:05
  • @BillDubuque Agreed. I try to address just that. Not sure how much can be said in general because it is, after all, an instance of the DLP. I made it CW, because I half expect a suitable duplicate target to exist (and don't want points for contributions like this anyway). – Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 22 '20 at 12:09
  • 1
    @Jyrki Given that the OP has now accepted what they already claimed to know, it's not clear what they are asking. For hand computation we can use Shank's baby-giant step as here to improve from a linear brute force search to sqrt of that (which here takes only $1$ step), but that's a bit overkill here for such small order $,({\rm ord}(2) = 11),$ where brute force listing the powers of $2$ is easy enough already. But it's not overkill in the linked post (and the other linked there). – Bill Dubuque Nov 22 '20 at 12:42
  • @BillDubuque Yeah. It is admittedly puzzling that the OP accepted an answer that didn't give them anything new, But, thanks for adding a link to an example of baby step - giant step approach. I should have remembered that possibility as well. – Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 22 '20 at 12:54