Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:25:14 UTC Posts: 14176 Location: Austin, TX
Indeed, as outermeasure has pointed out, for any x>7, we are left with a linear congruence modulo 7, so we can make it be whatever we feel like by picking x properly.
_________________ (\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination
Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC Posts: 6962 Location: On this day Taiwan becomes another Tiananmen under Dictator Ma.
Shadow wrote:
Indeed, as outermeasure has pointed out, for any x>7, we are left with a linear congruence modulo 7, so we can make it be whatever we feel like by picking x properly.
Indeed, if you want to use mod, you probably need some heavy analytic number theory machinery to help you pick a prime which is 1 (mod 3), for every sufficiently large , for which is not a cubic residue mod . Heuristically such prime should exist for all sufficiently large x
Spoiler:
If the cubic residues are uniformly distributed and independent, the probability of fixed x which doesn't have such prime p_x would be about , and so the expected number of such x is finite.
but you get into something very nasty very early on and AFAIK we don't know the behaviour of the cubic Gauss sum to say cubic residues are close enough to randomly distributed for the heuristic argument to work.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum