6
$\begingroup$

I have made the following observation: for those n even numbers that do not have primitive roots modulo n ,$Pr(n)$, the set $M(n)$ of those $k$ having a maximum multiplicative order $ord_n(k)$ contains at least a pair of primes $p_1$ and $p_2$ whose sum is $n$, so $p_1+p_2=n$.

Context: when a number $n$ does not have primitive roots modulo n, $Pr(n)$, it is possible to generate the set $M(n)$ that will include those numbers $k$ in $[1,n]$ whose order $ord_n(k)$ is the maximum multiplicative order of $k$ in $\Bbb Z/n \Bbb Z$, also named as the maximum possible order mod n depending on the reference you use. The definition of the order $ord_n(k)$ of an integer k modulo n (or multiplicative order of $k$ in $\Bbb Z/n \Bbb Z$) is here (click). $Max(ord_n(k))$ is the maximum possible value of the Carmichael function in [1,n].

$M(n)=\{\ m: ord_n(m) = Max(ord_n(k))\ ,\ k \in [1,n]\ \}$

Test: this is the PARI/GP code to calculate $M(n)$, returns the set and the maximum order:

noprimroot(n,limitval)={ while (n<limitval, if (n==3458 || n==4930 || n==31682 || n==82082 || n==93314 || n==150722 || n==324802 || n==344162 || n==798002 || n==898130 || n==977762 || n==1061762 || n==1313202 || n==1340066 || n==1633242 || n==1676402 || n==1947064 || n==1995266 ,n=n+2, if(trap(,,znprimroot(n)),, /* calculate value of maximum multiplicative order mod n */ carmfunc = znstar(n)[2][1]; wasfound = 0; p1=0; p2=0; for(i=1,n, if((gcd(i,n)==1) && (isprime(i) && (gcd(n-i,n)==1) && (isprime(n-i))), if (((i^carmfunc)%n)==1 && (((n-i)^carmfunc)%n)==1, p1=i; p2=n-i; wasfound=1;break ) ) ); if (wasfound==0,print("ERROR ",n);break,print("SUCCESS ",n," ",p1," ",p2)) ); n=n+2 ) ) } 

Be aware that there is a well known bug regarding the znstar function (used here to calculate the Carmichael function of $n$ that makes a infinite loop and crashes PARI/GP for some specific values (see first condition added in the code). For those values I have used the (very brute force) Python version written below.

Python code

By doing so, these are the first even number $n$ elements and their $M(n)$ sets, the first $n$ without primitive roots modulo $n$ is $n=8$:

$n=8$ and $Mo(8)=[3, 5, 7]$

$n=12$ and $Mo(12)=[5, 7, 11]$

$n=16$ and $Mo(16)=[3, 5, 11, 13]$

etc.

Test results: tested successfully the even numbers $n$'s in the interval $[1,2*10^6]$ and as far as I can see if I did not make an error in the test the following statement (1) is always true:

(1) $\forall n$ even if $\not\exists Pr(n)$ then $\exists (p_1,p_2)\ /\ (1)\ p_1,p_2 \in \Bbb P\ , (2) \ p_1,p_2 \in M(n), (3)\ p_1+p_2=n$

Meaning that for those even numbers $n$ that do not have primitive roots modulo $n$, their list of maximum multiplicative order elements to mod $n$, $M(n)$, at least contain two prime numbers $p_1$ and $p_2$ that are a Goldbach pair of $n$. With "Goldbach pair" I mean that $p_1+p_2=n$.

E.g. for the samples above:

$n=8$ and $Mo(8)=[3, 5, 7]$ , $p_1=3$ and $p_2=5$

$n=12$ and $Mo(12)=[5, 7, 11]$ , $p_1=5$ and $p_2=7$

$n=16$ and $Mo(16)=[3, 5, 11, 13]$ , $p_1=3$ and $p_2=13$

etc.

Some questions I would like to share:

My theoretical knowledge is very poor, please I would like to share with you the following questions to learn more about this:

  1. Is this relationship somehow trivial due to the way that the maximum order elements are defined and calculated?

  2. It is just coincidental (probabilistic) because the size of the set $M(n)$ gets big enough to contain at least a pair of primes complying with (1)?

  3. Is there a counterexample of them?

  4. If there are not counterexamples, and it is not a probabilistic coincidence, would it be possible based on the definition of the maximum order elements to prove that inside $M(n)$ there is always at least one pair of primes that will sum n when n is even? (if so at least the Goldbach conjecture could be true for this kind of numbers)

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $Mo(n)$ is still not clear to me, could you write it as a set? ( I presume it is a set ). $\endgroup$ Commented May 18, 2015 at 10:04
  • $\begingroup$ @baharampuri Hi, I have added a definition as a set in the question. I have tried my best, but I am not an expert and it is complex to describe for my level of knowledge. Have a look to it, I hope it will help to understand the construction of the sets. :) $\endgroup$ Commented May 18, 2015 at 11:59
  • $\begingroup$ @baharampuri I hope now will be more clear. Please if you need more details let me know. $\endgroup$ Commented May 19, 2015 at 13:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I saw the definition, thanks. $\endgroup$ Commented May 19, 2015 at 13:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 2000 is still a very small number from the perspective of primality - you still have a good 15% of the numbers (30% of the odd numbers!) smaller than that being prime, so it's very hard to make judgements from the relatively meager data here. I would want to see numerical evidence up to at least $10^7$ or so and preferably $10^9$ before really putting much weight behind this. $\endgroup$ Commented May 22, 2015 at 1:42

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.