20171117, 11:18  #1 
May 2004
2^{2}×79 Posts 
Conjecture pertaining to modified Fermat's theorem
Let a = x + ysqrt(m) be a quadratic integer. As stated before modified
Fermat's theorem is valid for m = 1 and 5 as practically proved by Hardy (An introduction to the theory of numbers). Conjecture: it is valid for all integer values of m subject to conditions: i) a and p are coprime ii) m not equal to p. Recall that modified Fermat's theorem is a^(p^21) = = 1 (mod p). Here x,y and m belong to Z. Last fiddled with by devarajkandadai on 20171117 at 11:21 Reason: important poimt omited 
20171117, 15:09  #2  
Aug 2006
5988_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Given any integer m which is not a square, any (rational) prime p, and any integers x and y, if
Is this correct? 

20171117, 17:12  #3  
Feb 2017
Nowhere
61×107 Posts 
Quote:
x^2  x  1 = 0 which by quadratic formula are . Second, you need to make it clear what you mean by "relatively prime to p." But, assuming you mean "a" can be any algebraic integer in the maximal order R (ring of algebraic integers) in Q(sqrt(m)), such that the ideal aR + pR is all of R, or alternatively, a is invertible in the residue ring R/pR, then assuming p does not divide the field discriminant, your "conjecture" is trivial and has been known since the precambrian era. OK, maybe not that long, but Lordy, it's been known a long time. Under this additional assumption, the residue ring R/pR is either the field of p^2 elements, of which the invertible elements form a cyclic group of order p^21; or the direct product of two copies of the field of p elements. The group of invertible elements in this ring is the direct product of two cyclic groups of order p1. In either case, the exponent of any invertible element divides p^2  1. If p does divide the field discriminant, your conjecture is in trouble. For example, with m equal to 1, p = 2 (which is not equal to m as per your condition), and a = i, p^2  1 is 3, but i^3 is not congruent to 1 (mod 2). In fact, i^2 = 1 is congruent to 1 (mod 2). Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 20171117 at 17:14 Reason: Fixing typos and editing mistakes 

20171118, 11:08  #4  
May 2004
100111100_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20171127, 10:08  #5  
May 2004
2^{2}·79 Posts 
Quote:
( to be continued). 

20171127, 20:45  #6 
Mar 2016
2^{2}·3·37 Posts 
Please consider that
(x+y)^p=x^p+y^p mod p if p is prime for (x+yI)^p = x^p+(yI)^p mod p if p=1 mod 4 => x^p+(y^p)I if p=3 mod 4 => x^p(y^p)I same calculation for A=sqrt (2) for example (x+yA)^p = x^p +(yA)^p = x^p+(y^p)(A^p) You get a criteria for an "extended Fermat" 
20171128, 12:26  #7  
May 2004
13C_{16} Posts 
Quote:
2) If, with respect to a given base as given above Fermat's theorem is valid for a given p needless to say modified Fermat's theorem is valid; the converse is not necessarily true. 3) If for a given base and p modified Fermat's theorem is valid in the relevant real field it will also be valid in the corresponding complex field (example: if it is valid in the field Mod(x^2  5) it will be valid in the field Mod(x^2 + 5) Now let me state the conjecture in the case where the discriminant, m, is a prime number : Let a be an algebraic quadratic integer. Then a^(p^21)==1 (mod p) subject to the following conditions: i) p is coprime with Norm of a ii) p not equal to m, the discriminant. 

20171129, 10:46  #8  
May 2004
2^{2}·79 Posts 
Quote:


20171130, 05:16  #9  
May 2004
100111100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Then a^(p^21) = = 1 subject to the following conditions: i) p is coprime with norm of a ii) p not equal to p_1, p_2,....p_r 

20171211, 05:04  #10  
May 2004
2^{2}×79 Posts 
Quote:


20171220, 05:19  #11 
May 2004
13C_{16} Posts 
Let us now consider the simplest case i.e. case (i) in which a = 0, b and c =1.Since m is
prime, raising sqrt(m) or sqrt(m) to an even power and recalling that m is not equal to p reduces the case to nothing but Fermat's theorem. Hence partly proved. (to be continued). 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Modified Fermat's theorem  devarajkandadai  Number Theory Discussion Group  14  20171112 20:04 
modified Euler's generalisation of Fermat's theorem  devarajkandadai  Number Theory Discussion Group  1  20170707 13:56 
Modified Fermat's theorem  devarajkandadai  Number Theory Discussion Group  2  20170623 04:39 
abc conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem  jasong  jasong  3  20121024 08:45 
Modified fermat's last theorem  Citrix  Math  24  20070517 21:08 