For a prime, show
.
Printable View
For a prime, show
.
I try not to consider the fact, i just regard it as the coefficient of a term in
We knowis the coefficient of
in the expansion of
while
is the coefficient of
in the expansion of
. Therefore ,
is the coefficient of
of
.
I would like to show that all the terms that the degrees are the multiple of primeare congruent to zero modulo
.
I consider
Note that all the terms inare divisible by
.
Then i consider the second polynomial , the annoying one .
I use the factto simplify
:
Then we are done , haha , let's get back the first polynomialwhose degree ranges from
to
so they are prime to
. Consider
, we find that the degrees are all mutiple of
so they become useless in the expansion if we are evaluating the coefficient of
since no terms in
could make the 'connection' to them . Therefore , the coefficient we are considering ( of
) is necessarily the mutiple of
, one
from
and one from
.
Remarks :
I don't like this result ... i am going to show that
For a primewe always have
:
Let's check my solution , writeor
![]()
Then the coefficient ofin
is congruent to (
) that in
. It suffices to show that the coefficient of
in
is congruent to zero modulo
.
ie :
.
Please see this post , http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...nt-149645.html
It is not a help begging but a challenge , let's finish the proof by solving my challenge .
letby the Fermat's little theorem, in
we have
![]()
as a resultwhich is Wilson's theorem, and
for all
in particular
for any integer
![]()
thusand
the result now follows from the trivial identity
simplependulum's question is also solved by this method and using an old result due to Wolstenholmes which says that for![]()
thusfor all integers
therefore for all primes
and all integers
we have
Yeah , the key is :Quote:
simplependulum's question is also solved by this method and using an old result due to Wolstenholmes which says that for![]()
thusfor all integers
therefore for all primes
and all integers
we have
![]()
For
Proof :
Assume
so we are going to showwe have
![]()
![]()
Therefore ,
For any integerlet
, then (*)
; this will be justified later.
With this we can write for some positive integerthe following:
, and so
(^)(I applied the congruence (*)).
Setfor brevity, so
and
. Consider the following
, the last equality is because
. I write the main equality: (#)
Now computing (#) moduloand using result (^) we have
;
. Since
is relatively prime to
, we can arrive at
, or
.
Everything depends now on proving (*). From the expansion ofit can be noticed that taking
from more than one parentheses gives terms that are divisble by
, therefore
, where
.
Consider the polynomial. Then,
, where
.
and because
we have
; or
. Divide by
, so
, and
is divisible by
.
We now can conclude that.
I hope I'm not missing something...
We proceed by induction on, for
it's trivial that
for all
.
Now assume the assertion holds for, let's show it the holds for
. - in what follows we consider a > b since it's trivial otherwise.
We have
Note that ifdivides
we are done, because
by the inductive hypothesis and Pascal's identity.
Now. If we denote by
the greatest integer r such that
then:
;
since
;
where
is the greatest r such that
since
- you can check this by using Polignac's formula -
Thusand so
divides
for all k = 1,...,p-1 .
But alsois a multiple of p for
and so we are done