First, I am not a mathematician; my highest math courses were undergrad linear algebra and ODEs a decade ago, plus some additional learning on my own since then. I welcome correction on my terminology or suggestions of resources to study.
I have been playing with modular exponentiation. It's been known for centuries that some of the resulting cycles can be written in terms of others, with certain roots being "primitive" in that other cycles can be represented in terms of the primitive roots.
What I don't understand is why some cycles are obviously derivable from certain roots but non-obviously derivable from others. For example, take 2, 8, and -10 $\mod 36$:
2: [2 4 8 16 -4 -8 -16 4 ...]
8: [8 -8 8 ...]
-10: [-10 -8 8 -8...]
The relationship between 2 and 8 is obvious, because $8^n \mod 36 ≡ (2^3)^n \mod 36$.
What is not obvious to me is the relationship between 8 and -10 $\mod 36$, and yet $8^n \mod 36 ≡ (-10^3)^n \mod 36$. The only relationship I can see between 8, -10, and $-10^3$ is that $10^3 = 8 * 5^3$, but I don't see how that would make it obvious that 8's cycle can be derived from -10's.
More generally, is it possible to explore and discover these relationships without exhaustively creating the modular multiplication table $mod n$? Similar to how one could easily know that the 8 cycle can be represented in terms of the 2 cycle?