Evaluate the Jacobi symbol ((n−1)(n+1)/n) for any odd natural number n.

Trying out some numbers, I THINK it alternates between 1 and -1, but how can we PROVE it formally?

Any help is appreciated!

[also under discussion in math link forum]

Printable View

- March 7th 2010, 01:39 AMkingwinnerJacobi Symbol
**Evaluate the Jacobi symbol ((n−1)(n+1)/n) for any odd natural number n.**

Trying out some numbers, I THINK it alternates between 1 and -1, but how can we PROVE it formally?

Any help is appreciated!

[also under discussion in math link forum] - March 7th 2010, 03:43 PMchiph588@

For odd, .

For even, take , then . - March 7th 2010, 05:27 PMkingwinner
- March 7th 2010, 07:42 PMchiph588@
- March 7th 2010, 08:24 PMkingwinner
But I'm concerned with one special case. For the case n=1, ((n−1)(n+1)/n)=(0/1)

Is (0/1)=1 or (0/1)=0 ?? Which one is the correct answer and why?

Thanks! - March 7th 2010, 10:33 PMchiph588@
- March 7th 2010, 10:40 PMkingwinner
- March 7th 2010, 10:46 PMchiph588@
Jacobi symbol

Apparently the answer is . I haven't had too much exposure to the Jacobi symbol so I can't really tell you why. Check out the site for yourself though. - March 7th 2010, 11:18 PMNonCommAlg
because the set of prime factors of is empty. if is an odd integer, then

- March 8th 2010, 01:08 AMkingwinner
Is there any reason why (0/1)=1?? Is this simply becuase by convention, we define it to be that way?

1 has no prime factorization, so the product is empty. Is it conventional to define the "empty" product to be equal to +1??

Also, is it true that,*by definition*, (a/1)=1 for*any*integer a?

Can someone clarify this? Thank you! - March 8th 2010, 07:54 PMNonCommAlg
- March 8th 2010, 08:52 PMkingwinner
- March 8th 2010, 09:53 PMBacterius
It could perhaps be to avoid making annoying "special cases" in theorems.

Example (which is not linked to your question, but just to show you) :

*Why do we define 1 as not being prime ?*

If we defined 1 as being prime, we would have to reformulate the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic in a rather*heavy*way, stating that "apart from adding 1's, the prime decomposition of a number is unique without taking into account the order" ...

And since there is no particular reason to define 1 as a prime, we just prefer to say it isn't one :)