[[closed]]
Are you using Burton ?
Yes !
I like that book
tell me what is a pseudo prime ?
n is a pseudo prime if n|2^{n}-2
or rather n|a^{n}-a
right, what is an absolute pseudo prime ?
\[\large a^n \equiv a \pmod{n}\] A composite number \(n\) is called an absolute pseudo prime only if above congruence holds for all integers \(a\)
btw are you familiar wid congruences ?
yes !
good, lets look at what a `square free integer` means first
a integer which is not divided by a perfect square ???
thats right, another easy way to make sense of it is by looking at the prime factorization : \(\large 30 = 2*3*5 \) is a square free integer because it is a product of single primes
\(\large 120 = 2^3*3*5\) is not a square free integer because the exponent of \(2\) is not \(1\)
In short : an integer is square free if all the exponents of primes in its prime factorization are \(1\)
okay! got this. I have a doubt in paragraph. it was taken that a=k and the rest follows that k^n cong k(mod n) but for the later part I am confused. Like it is written k cong k^n cong 0 modk^2. I mean how can i infer this from the last statement. Help me ! May be I am missing anything.
You're interpreting it correctly... let me see if I can make it more simpler for you :)
suppose \(n\) is an absolute pseudo prime and not square free. since \(n\) is not square free, we have \(k^2 | n\) for some square factor, yes ?
yes.. !! :)
next, since \(n\) is an absolute pseudo prime, we have : \[k^n\equiv k \pmod{n}\] yes ?
that just another way of saying \(\large n | (k^n-k)\)
yes
we also have \(k^2 | n\) that implies \(k^2 | (k^n-k)\) yes ?
yes :)
\(\large k^2 | (k^n-k)\) is impossible, why ?
cause square of a number cannot divide the number .
like 25 doesnot divide 5
yes but we don't have \(k^2|k\) all we have is \(k^2 | (k^n-k)\)
may i know why are you ignoring \(k^n\) ?
oho... I missed that.
Easy, we already know that \(k^2 | k^n\) so \(k^2 | (k^n - k)\) is equivalent to \(k^2 | (0-k)\) whis is equivalent to \(k^2|-k\) which is equivalent to \(k^2|k\) which is nonsense.
we reached that because we have wrongly assumed that the absolute pseudo prime \(n\) is not square free. so the opposite of our assumption must be true : \(n\) is square free
one more thing for carmichael no. it is required that gcd of the the base and the composite no. to be 1 ???
"carmichael number" is a synonym for "absolute pseudo prime"
both are same
oh it is in the book itself, hahahahha... silly me.. anyways thank you....
yw:)
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!