[seqfan] A097160
Don Reble
djr at nk.ca
Sat Aug 2 00:45:58 CEST 2014
> %I A097160
> %S 5,17,53,193,457,2153,4481,9857,17041,23473
> %N Greatest prime p such that there are n, but not n+1, consecutive
> quadratic residues mod p, or -1 if no such prime exists.
> %C It is not clear to me how many of these entries have been proved to
> be correct. As the following comments by David Harden show, this
> is a difficult problem. - njas, Jan 01 2007
I should have investigated further, back then:
a(9)=17041 is wrong (it's >= 25793)
a(10)=23473 is wrong (it's >= 60961)
The sequence is total:
> According to a theorem of Alfred Brauer [1] all sufficiently large
> primes have runs of L consecutive integers that are Kth power residues,
> where K and L are arbitrarily given integers.
That quote is from [2].
David Harden's proof (that a(2)=17) looks hard to generalize:
there's no upper bound on the first run of three [2], and so
he uses arithmetic progressions of three squares. But there is
no progression of four squares!
[1] Alfred Brauer, Ueber Sequenzen von Potenzresten,
S.-B. Deutsch. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1928, 9-16.
[2] D. H. Lehmer and Emma Lehmer, On Runs of Residues,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc, vol 13, 1962, pp 102-106.
But you don't need progressions of squares, just of quadratic
residues. Exploiting that, I find another proof for A097160(2).
Assuming that there are no three consecutives:
5- (1+ 5- 9+) / 4+
7- (7- 16+ 25+) / 9+
20- (4+ 20- 36+) / 16+
35+ 5- * 7-
34- (34- 35+ 36+) / 1+
27+ (20- 27+ 34-) / 7-
3+ 27+ / 9+
2- (1+ 2- 3+) / 1+
10+ 2- * 5-
11- (9+ 10+ 11-) / 1+
13- (10+ 13- 16+) / 3+
15- 3+ * 5-
15+ (11- 13- 15+) / 2-
Meanings:
5 is a non-residue, so that (1/4, 5/4, 9/4) isn't a run of residues.
...
35 is a residue, because it's the product of non-residues 5 and 7.
...
3 is a residue, because it's the quotient of residues 27 and 9.
That contradiction (15-, 15+) refutes the assumption.
This also assumes that the modulus is prime (so that products of
non-residues are residues), and that each prime factor of the
mentioned numbers does not divide the modulus (so that each number
isn't congruent to 0, and therefore is a residue or a non-residue,
and is invertible).
The mentioned numbers are 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 13 15 16 20 25 27 34 35 36;
their prime factors are 2 3 5 7 11 13 17;
and so the proof applies only to prime moduli > 17.
So A097160(2) <= 17.
Similarly, I find that
a(3) <= 107
a(4) <= 449
a(5) <= 1987
a(6) <= 12919
(Perhaps there are proofs which provide lower upper-bounds;
my program stops when it finds any ol' proof.)
The rest (a(2)=17, a(3)=53, a(4)=193...) is just computation.
Anyway, the sequence is correct to
5,17,53,193,457,2153
and it very likely continues
4481,9857,25793,60961,132113,324673
I agree that it's a hard problem: my proof for a(6) has about
660,000 lines. And there's no reason to think that my procedure
always finds a proof, or always halts.
Unless, of course, there is. [1] seems to be inaccessible to me,
physically and also (I presume) linguistically. Does Brauer have
a computable upper bound?
--
Don Reble djr at nk.ca
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the SeqFan
mailing list