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 - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...