Skip to main content

options - Solving/Reducing equations in $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$


I was trying to find all the numbers $n$ for which $2^n=n\mod 10^k$ using Mathematica. My first try:


Reduce[2^n == n, n, Modulus -> 100]

However, I receive the following error:



Reduce::nsmet: This system cannot be solved with the methods available to Reduce. >>

using $n^2$ instead of $2^n$ works just fine, where is the problem with $2^n\;$?


On top of that, how do I keep the modulus $10^k$ variable and therefore, receive a solution dependent on $k\;$?



Answer



The problem we encounter here is an instance of rather unexpected limitations of equation solving functionality (i.e. Modulus option in Reduce), e.g. this question : Strange behaviour of Reduce for Mod[x,1] provides another example which has been fixed in the newest version (9.0) of Mathematica. Since Modulus unexpectedly doesn't work here we can take advantage of the Mod function. The main issue here is that there are infinitely many solutions and even though one might classify them easily, the task of finding a general solution is not straightforward in Mathematica. Taking this into account one should assume some bounds on n. If we do so, given a small integer k > 0, we can find all solutions in a given range, e.g. for k == 2 :


Reduce[ Mod[ 2^n - n, 100] == 0 && 0 < n < 10^3, n, Integers]


n ==  36 || n == 136 || n == 236 || n == 336 || n == 436 || n == 536 ||

n == 636 || n == 736 || n == 836 || n == 936

Increasing the range of n we might ensure that the general form of the solution for k == 2 should be n == 100 m + 36 for m ∈ Integers && m >= 0 and then we could proceed in order to prove an appropriate mathematical theorem. For a general k >= 1 the space of possible solutions to be explored is much wider, and restricting k e.g. this way 0 < k < n < 10^3 it takes much more time to find all solutions :


Reduce[ Mod[ 2^n - n, 10^k] == 0 && 0 < k < n < 10^3, {k, n}, Integers]

while for e.g. 0 < k < 10 < n < 10^3 we get the results almost immediately :


Solve[ Mod[ 2^n - n, 10^k] == 0 && 0 < k < 10 < n < 10^3, {k, n}, Integers] // Short


{ { k -> 1, n -> 14}, {k -> 1, n -> 16}, {k -> 1, n -> 34},

<<105>>, {k -> 2, n -> 836}, {k -> 2, n -> 936}, {k -> 3, n -> 736}}

Edit 1


Assuming n in a finite range we can still encounter messages, that the system cannot be solved e.g. :


Reduce[ Mod[ 2^n - n, 10^5] == 0 && 10^(5 - 1) < n < 10^5, n, Integers]


Reduce::nsmet: This system cannot be solved with the methods available to Reduce. >>

A workaround (not very convenient) would be dividing the range 10^(5 - 1) < n < 10^5 into e.g. 9 equal ranges m 10^4 < n < (m + 1) 10^4 for integer m : 1 <= m <= 9. A more systematic approach takes advantage of one of many SystemOptions like ExhaustiveSearchMaxPoints (there is no separate documentation page for this option, nevertheless one finds necessary information here Diophantine Polynomial Systems ), which by default is :



SystemOptions[ "ReduceOptions" -> "ExhaustiveSearchMaxPoints"]


{"ReduceOptions" -> {"ExhaustiveSearchMaxPoints" -> {1000, 10000}}}

increasing the last value we can find the only solution in a given range :


SetSystemOptions["ReduceOptions" -> "ExhaustiveSearchMaxPoints" -> {1000, 100000}];
Reduce[ Mod[ 2^n - n, 10^5] == 0 && 10^(5 - 1) < n < 10^5, n, Integers]



n == 48736

to solve e.g. Mod[ 2^n - n, 10^6] == 0 && 10^(6 - 1) < n < 10^6 we need to increase ExhaustiveSearchMaxPoints even more , e.g. (it takes a few minutes to evaluate) :


SetSystemOptions[ "ReduceOptions" -> "ExhaustiveSearchMaxPoints" -> {10^6, 10^6}];
Reduce[ Mod[ 2^n - n, 10^6] == 0 && 10^(6 - 1) < n < 10^6, n, Integers]


n == 948736

Edit 2



To prove a more general theorem we can use the results we've got so far. Assuming this form of the general solution for k == 2 : n == 100 m + 36 for m ∈ Integers && m >= 0 we can demonstrate working with Resolve that in fact it is a solution in much wider range than we could do this with Reduce as above. Unfortunately we can't prove with Mathematica that it is a solution for all natural m because we have to assume a lower and upper bound, e.g. (evaluating it takes a few minutes) :


Resolve[ ForAll[ m, 0 < m <= 10^5 && m ∈ Integers, 
Mod[ 2^(100 m + 36) - 100 m - 36, 100] == 0]]


True

Increasing ExhaustiveSearchMaxPoints we found ~ 10000 solutions, while this way we showed that the result is true for all natural m <= 10^5 in approximately the same time.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....