LOGIN/REGISTER
Please Wait...
It is currently Sep 09, 2010, 1:58 am
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ]  Share: Facebook
Message
Post Posted: May 24, 2007, 5:24 pm • # 1 


Let M be an integer, and let p be a prime with p>25. Show that the set \{M, M+1, \cdots, M+ 3\lfloor \sqrt{p} \rfloor  -1\} contains a quadratic non-residue to modulus p.
 
 
Post Posted: Feb 13, 2009, 2:59 am • # 2 


Ok. I solved it but the second lemma is a bit ugly. maybe someone sees an improvement so we can improve that 484 thing

lemma1
there exists a quadratic non-residue a modulo p which is less or equal to \lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor + 1

Proof:
let a be the smallest quadratic non-residue mod p. Now define b = \lfloor \frac {p}{a} \rfloor + 1. Than ab < p + a meaning ab - p < a (obviouslly by substituting p = ka + r we easily conclude ab > p). therefore ab - p must be a quadratic residue. we have (these are legendre symbols)
1 = (\frac {ab - p}{p}) = (\frac {ab}{p}) = (\frac {a}{p})(\frac {b}{p})
and since a is a non-residue also b must be.
but than because a is the smallest a\leq b = \lfloor \frac {p}{a} \rfloor + 1 which leads to a\leq \lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor + 1

lemma2
there exists a quadratic non-residue c mod p (p > 484 :blush: ) such that
\frac {p}{3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1} \leq c \leq \frac {3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1}{2}
Proof:
consider a (the smallest non-residue modp). a\leq \frac {3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1}{2} by first lemma (obviously \frac {3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1}{2}\geq \lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor + 1 for p > 8)
if a\geq \frac {p}{3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1} than a = c. But if that is not the case than we consider numbers a,4a,4^2a,4^3a.... these numbers are all quadratic non residues mod p because legendre's symbol is multiplicative. and more. one of these numbers is between \frac {p}{3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1} and \frac {3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1}{2}. that is because \frac {3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1}{2} > 4\cdot \frac {p}{3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1} for suficiently large p and it's therefore imposible for the sequence a,4a,4^2a,4^3a... to miss this interval.
the inequality is equivalent to 8p < 9(\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor)^2 - 6\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor + 1. now we substitute p = x^2 + d(where d < 2x + 1) and we get 0 < x^2 - 22x + 1 which is true for all x grater than 21 mening p > 22^2 = 484

now for the problem
assume the statement is false and p > 484. therefore there exist 3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor consecutive numbers mod p that are all quadratic residues (one of them may be zero). now consider the set\{cM, c(M + 1), \cdots, c(M + 3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1) \} where c is such a non-residue as in lemma2.
because the legendre's symbol is multiplicative this now is a set of quadratic non-residues(one of them can be zero) that are at most 2c appart one from another.(if one is zero). we have 2c\leq3\lfloor \sqrt {p}\rfloor - 1 by definition of c. therefore it is imposible to pick 3\lfloor \sqrt {p}\rfloor consecutive numbers such that none of them would be a non-residue starting between cM and c(M + 3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1).
however this interval has lenght of c(3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1) which is grater or equal than p due to definition of c and lemma2. we have therefore covered the whole modul with non-residues that are at most 3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor - 1 appart. it is therefore impossible to choose 3\lfloor \sqrt {p} \rfloor consecutive numbers which do not contain a non-residue. Q.E.D

all that remains is to check all prime numbers up to 484. which is quite a suferable task. i didn't check them myself but i trust the problem holds and hope someone will now come up with a lower bound than 484

_________________
Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten, because languages die and mathematical ideas do not!
 
 
Post Posted: Feb 22, 2009, 11:29 am • # 3 


I have proved that the set \{M, M+1, \cdots, M+ 2\lfloor \sqrt{p} \rfloor +2\} contains a quadratic non-residue to modulus p for all primes p. Is it right?
 
 
Post Posted: Feb 23, 2009, 10:03 am • # 4 


Yes. if u consider 0\mod{p} as non-residue that is the best result u can get using the same method as i have done above. i however didn't consider zero as a non-residue.
if u didn't consider 0 as a non-residue than i don't know. u must have used modificated or completely different method. why don't u show us your proof
 
 
Post Posted: Feb 24, 2009, 12:02 pm • # 5 


Here is my proof.


Attachments:
p.pdf [41 KiB]
Downloaded 175 times
 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

Share: Facebook
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

Login

Username:   Password:   Log me on automatically each visit  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum