Menu Close

i-still-search-about-a-general-and-complete-solution-about-this-determine-x-in-N-where-7-divise-2-x-3-x-note-it-is-just-an-exercise-in-secondary-so-dont-go-away-maybe-we-must-use-separation-of




Question Number 21990 by hi147 last updated on 08/Oct/17
i still search about a general and   complete solution about this  determine x in N where 7 divise 2^x +3^x   note = it is just an exercise in secondary  so dont go away...  maybe we must use separation of cases  methode....
istillsearchaboutageneralandcompletesolutionaboutthisdeterminexinNwhere7divise2x+3xnote=itisjustanexerciseinsecondarysodontgoawaymaybewemustuseseparationofcasesmethode.
Commented by Tinkutara last updated on 11/Oct/17
I got x ≡ 3 (mod 6). Is this true?
Igotx3(mod6).Isthistrue?
Answered by Tinkutara last updated on 11/Oct/17
By Fermat′s little theorem,  2^6 ≡1(mod 7)  ⇒2^(6k+r) ≡2^r (mod 7)  Similarly, 3^(6k+r) ≡3^r (mod 7)  ⇒ 2^(6k+r) +3^(6k+r) ≡2^r +3^r (mod 7)  For k=0 and trying for 0<r<6,  2^1 +3^1 ≡5(mod 7)  2^2 +3^2 ≡6(mod 7)  2^3 +3^3 ≡0(mod 7)  2^4 +3^4 ≡6(mod 7)  2^1 +3^1 ≡2(mod 7)  Hence x≡3(mod 6).
ByFermatslittletheorem,261(mod7)26k+r2r(mod7)Similarly,36k+r3r(mod7)26k+r+36k+r2r+3r(mod7)Fork=0andtryingfor0<r<6,21+315(mod7)22+326(mod7)23+330(mod7)24+346(mod7)21+312(mod7)Hencex3(mod6).
Commented by hi147 last updated on 16/Oct/17
thats good but how can we prove that  it is the only solution.i mean 6k+3.   and we have an other problem = it is  just an exercise in secondary  and we dont have fermat s littel theorem  in this livel.so.....
thatsgoodbuthowcanweprovethatitistheonlysolution.imean6k+3.andwehaveanotherproblem=itisjustanexerciseinsecondaryandwedonthavefermatslitteltheoreminthislivel.so..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *