3

Conjecture:

Let $a,b,n,m$ be natural numbers. Then the expression $$ a^{\frac{{\phi (b^n )}}{{\phi (b)}} - 1} \equiv b^0 + b^1 + b^2 + \ldots + b^{n - 1}\pmod{ b^n} $$ always holds true if $(a,b)=(2m,2m+1)$.


Note:

(1) We have experimentally varified the conjecture by putting values for $(a,b,n)$ as:

$(2,3,2);(2,3,3);(2,3,4);(2,3,5);(2,3,6);(2,3,7);(4,5,2);(4,5,3);(4,5,4);(4,5,5);(4,5,6);(4,5,7);(6,7,2);(6,7,3);(6,7,4);(6,7,5);(6,7,6);(6,7,7);(8,9,2);(8,9,3);(8,9,4);(8,9,5);(8,9,6);(8,9,7)$

So on...and Result always holds true.

(2) We can rewrite the same above expression by substituting value of $(a,b)=(2m,2m+1)$ and then expression will looks like this: $$ \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n - 1} {(2m + 1)^k } \equiv (2m)^{\frac{{\phi ((2m + 1)^n )}}{{\phi (2m + 1)}} - 1} \pmod{(2m + 1)^n}. $$


Our attempts

Attempt 01:

Since $\gcd(a,b)=1$ as $a$, $b$ are consecutive natural numbers, we can say $\gcd(a,b^n)=1$ then by Euler's formula, we can write $$ a^{\phi (b^n )} \equiv 1 \pmod{b^n} $$ but after this we don't know how to proceed further.


Attempt 02:

Since $b^0+b^1+\ldots+b^k$ is a geometric series, it is $(b^n-1)/(b-1)$ where $k=n-1$. Then $(b^n-1)/(b-1)=(b^n-1)/a$.

But this attempt also does not help us very much.


Attempt 03:

In our third attempt, we expand $(2m+1)^k$ using the binomial theorem and we also used the expression $$ \phi (n^k ) = n^{k - 1} \phi (n) $$(see here) to modify the the power of $2m$ but this technique makes things more complicated.


OUR QUESTION: Is the conjecture above already known?

Case01: if your answer is yes, then provide refrence about how it is related to that theorem.

Case02: if your answer is no, then please provide an approach about how to prove this, otherwise provide a counterexample to prove it wrong.

  • 1
    Have you experimentally verified your conjecture for large samples? It’s hard to trust when all the examples are small – FShrike Jul 19 '22 at 12:10
  • I have checked 25 values of (a,b) ....,sinc i have no computer and don't know any programming so i can't check larger values by hand on my copy –  Jul 19 '22 at 12:12
  • 1
    Using your expression from attempt 3 you can simplify the exponent, and then using the result from attempt 2 and multiplying both sides by $a$ you get $(b-1)^{b^{n-1}} \equiv -1 \pmod {b^n}$ where $b$ is odd. This can be proved by induction on $n$, where you need the binomial theorem in the proof of the induction step. – Jaap Scherphuis Jul 19 '22 at 13:41

1 Answers1

3

Euler's product formula states that $$\phi(\alpha)=\alpha\prod_{p|\alpha \text{ prime}}(1-1/p)$$ for an integer $\alpha>0$, from which it follows that $$\frac{\phi(b^n)}{\phi(b)}=b^{n-1}.$$

Since $a$ is coprime to $b$ and hence to $b^n$, $a$ is invertible modulo $b^n$, and thus your conjecture is equivalent to $$(b-1)^{b^{n-1}}\equiv (b-1)(1+b+\cdots+b^{n-1})\mod b^n,$$ which in turn is equivalent to $$(b-1)^{b^{n-1}}\equiv -1\mod b^n.$$

This last identity can be proven by induction on $n\geq 1$. The case $n=1$ is obvious. For the inductive step, assume that $xb^n=(b-1)^{b^{n-1}}+1$ for some integer $x$. Then $$(b-1)^{b^{n}}=\left((b-1)^{b^{n-1}}\right)^b=(xb^n-1)^b=\sum_{k=0}^b\binom{b}{k}x^kb^{kn}(-1)^{b-k}.$$

Modulo $b^{n+1}$, all terms in the right sum vanish (since $b^{kn}\equiv 0\mod b^{n+1}$ if $k>0$), except the first one, which is $(-1)^{b}=-1$ as $b$ is odd. This means that $$(b-1)^{b^n}\equiv -1\mod b^{n+1},$$ as was the goal.

Zuy
  • 4,656
  • Is the proof of last expression " $$(b-1)^{b^{n-1}}+1\equiv 0\mod b^n.$$ " will be easy or hard to prove? I am very less experienced in number theory and have just a high school level knowledge so that why I am asking this question...., Because on you tube especially of numberphile channel, some mathematician claim that proving things regarding integer where variable contains higher power integer value n are probably hard to prove..., –  Jul 19 '22 at 17:33
  • 1
    @JayendraandSankalp My answer should now be complete. Your conjecture was thus correct. – Zuy Jul 20 '22 at 07:35
  • "Jaap Scherphuis" also said to prove this by using induction in above comment section but my school teacher suggest that before proving anything by induction, we first assume that conjecture is true beacuse sometimes induction method fails in some conjecture which are actually not true...., So my doubt is : " why this question is suitable for proving by induction because we initially don't know whether the conjecture is true or not"? –  Jul 20 '22 at 08:30
  • See the given below link about how induction method proof make the wrong assumption correct: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/993992/999691 –  Jul 20 '22 at 08:58
  • 1
    @JayendraandSankalp Firstly, in order to do a proof by induction, you already need to know what exactly it is you want to prove, and of course you also need to be sufficiently convinced that the result you wish to prove is correct. Furthermore, for the proof by induction to be complete, it is absolutely necessary that the base case (in my proof the case $n=1$) is checked. One of the answers in the linked question shows an example of a "proof" of $n!<0$; in this "proof", however, the base case was not checked. – Zuy Jul 20 '22 at 09:48