5

Let $a$ and $b$ be integers, and denote by ${\rm ord}_p(a)$ the $\textbf{multiplicative order}$ of $a$ modulo $p$.

Assume that there exists a constant $K$ such that for all prime $p>K$, ${\rm ord}_p(b)$ divides ${\rm ord}_p(a)$. Is it that $b$ is a power of $a$?

I came up with this question, but I don't know if it's true or false, and I have no idea how to deal with it. Could you help me?

Thanks.

Noomkwah
  • 618
  • 3
  • 12
  • 2
    Note that this statement implies elementarily the result of the N7 of the shortlist of the IMO 2009. So if there is a proof, it is not an obvious one. – Aphelli Sep 30 '21 at 19:54
  • 2
    (The confusion in the comments is likely because the symbol $\text{ord}_p(b)$ is often used for the valuation of $b$ rather than the multiplicative order of $b$ mod $p$.) – hunter Sep 30 '21 at 20:49
  • I suppose you want to assume $a,b > 1$. Equivalently the question asks if $b$ is a power of $a$ modulo $p$ for all primes $p > K$, is it true that $b$ is a power of $a$? In other words, for all $p > K$ there exists $0 \leq t_p < p$ such that $b \equiv a^{t_p} \mod{p}$. If you could show that for some $t$ you have $t_p = t$ for infinitely many primes $p$, then $a^t - b$ has infinitely many prime divisors and thus $a^t = b$. – spin Oct 01 '21 at 08:34

1 Answers1

3

The (nontrivial) answer seems to be yes. Assume $a,b \geq 2$ to make matters simpler. The proof is a bit complex and it can probably be improved – I think that we can deal with sign issues by using a little bit more caution.

Let $k \geq 3$ be any large prime number (not dividing by any of the nonzero valuations at any prime of $a$ or $b$), and consider the number fields $K_a$ and $K_b$, where $K_x$ is the Galois closure of $R_x=\mathbb{Q}(x^{1/k})$. Now, $K_x$ is the tensor product of $R_x$ and $C=\mathbb{Q}(e^{2i\pi/k})$.

A large enough prime $p$ is totally split in $K_x$ iff it is split in $R_x$ and $C$, iff it is congruent to $1$ mod $k$ and $a$ is a $p$-th power mod $k$, iff $X^k-x$ splits simply in $\mathbb{F}_p$.

So, assume that $p$ is a large prime that splits completely in $K_a$. Then $k|p-1$ and $a$ is a $k$-th power mod $p$. Thus $\mathrm{ord}_p(a)$ divides $\frac{p-1}{k}$. Thus the same holds for $\mathrm{ord}_p(b)$, and thus (as $k|p-1$) $b$ is a $k$-th power in $\mathbb{F}_p$ and thus $p$ splits totally in $K_b$.

It follows by Cebotarev that $K_b \subset K_a$ and by dimension that $K_b=K_a$. In other words, $R_b$ is a subextension of $K_a$ (of degree $p$). Now, the Galois group of $K_a$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ can easily be shown to be the semi-direct product of $\mathbb{F}_k$ and $\mathbb{F}_k^{\times}$ (the latter acting on the former by multiplication), so it has cardinality $k(k-1)$.

How many subgroups of index $k$ does it have? Well, such a subgroup $H$ has order $k-1$, so its intersection with $Gal(K_a/C) \cong \mathbb{F}_k$ is trivial, so its projection to $Gal(C/\mathbb{Q}) \cong \mathbb{F}_k^{\times}$ is injective, hence an isomorphism and $H$ is cyclic, generated by its unique element above a fixed generator of $Gal(C/\mathbb{Q})$.

It follows that there are exactly $k$ extensions $H$ of index $k$, and thus $K_a$ has exactly $k$ subextensions of degree $k$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. Moreover, it’s easy to see that the $\mathbb{Q}(a^{1/k}e^{2il\pi/k})$, $0 \leq l < k$, all fit this description and are pairwise distinct (otherwise two of them are equal and it follows that one extension isomorphic to $R_a$ contains a $k$-th root of unity, which impossible by dimension since $k-1$ doesn’t divide $k$), and that the only one which is a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ is $R_a$. Thus $R_b=R_a$.

Let, for an automorphism $\sigma$ and $x=a,b$, $m(\sigma)$ be the number in $\mathbb{F}_k^{\times}$ such that $\sigma(e^{2i\pi/k})=e^{2i\pi m(\sigma)/k}$, and $n_x(\sigma)$ be the number in $\mathbb{F}_k$ such that $\sigma(x^{1/k})x^{-1/k}=e^{2i\pi n_x(\sigma)/k}$.

In $Gal(K_a/C)$, it’s easy to see that $\sigma \longmapsto n_x(\sigma)$ is an isomorphism, and thus $n_b=sn_a$ for an integer $k > s \geq 1$.

Therefore, if $x= b^{1/k}a^{-s/k} \in R_a=R_b$, the stabilizer in $Gal(K_a/\mathbb{Q})$ of $x$ contains $Gal(K_a/C)$ (so is divisible by $k$) and $Gal(K_a/R_a)$ (so is divisible by $k-1$) so is all of $Gal(K_a/\mathbb{Q})$, thus $b^{1/k} \in \mathbb{Q}a^{s/k}$. Thus $b/a^s$ is a $k$-th power in $\mathbb{Q}$.

In other words, consider the vectors $v_a=(v_p(a))_{p}$ of $p$-adic valuations of $a$ for all primes $p$, and the same vector $(v_p(b))_{p}$. We know that these vectors have finite support and are collinear mod every large prime number: it follows (using, say, determinants) that they are collinear in $\mathbb{Q}$.

In other words, we can find pairwise coprime positive integers $n,m$ and an integer $t$ such that $b=t^n, a=t^m$.

Then, if $p$ is a large prime, $\mathrm{ord}_p(b)=\frac{\mathrm{ord}_p(t)}{\mathrm{ord}_p(t) \wedge n}$. Using a similar argument for $a$, it follows that for almost every prime, $\mathrm{ord}_p(t) \wedge n$ is a multiple of $\mathrm{ord}_p(t) \wedge m$. But these two numbers are coprime, so there are finitely many primes $p$ such that the multiplicative order of $t$ mod $p$ is divisible by a prime dividing $m$.

But if $m>1$, this is in gross contradiction to Zsigmondy’s theorem (or, here, a LTE-based elementary statement saying that if $p$ is a prime divisor of $m$, there are infinitely many prime numbers dividing $t^{p^l}-1$ for some $l \geq 1$). So $t=a$, QED.


Edit: I know it’s been a year, but I realized that the argument could be made clearer. So let $a,b \geq 2$ be such that the multiplicative order of $b$ mod $p$ divides that of $a$ for almost all primes $p$. We want to show that $b$ is a power of $a$.

First, assume that $a,b$ are multiplicatively dependent, ie there are positive integers $r,s,t$ with $s,t$ coprime such that $a=r^s$, $b=r^t$. For $n \geq 10$, then $r^{sn}-1$ has a primitive prime divisor $p$ by Zsigmondy, so that $r^{tn}-1$ is also divisible by $p$. Thus $p$ divides the gcd of $r^{tn}-1$ and $r^{sn}-1$, which is $r^n-1$. But as $p$ is primitive, $n \geq sn$, so $s=1$ and $b$ is a power of $a$.

So we can assume that $a,b$ are multiplicatively independent. In other words, there is a large prime $k$ and primes $s,t$ such that $k$ doesn’t divide $v_s(a)v_t(b)-v_t(a)v_s(b)$ (in particular, $a,b$ are not $k$-th powers).

Let $C=\mathbb{Q}(\mu_k)$, $R_x=\mathbb{Q}(x^{1/k})$ and $K_x=R_xC$ for $x=a,b$. Note that $K_a,K_b$ are Galois over $\mathbb{Q}$.

As $C$ and $R_x$ have coprime degrees over $\mathbb{Q}$ ($k-1$ and $k$, respectively), $C \otimes R_x \rightarrow K_x$ is an isomorphism. Moreover, a prime number $p$ splits totally in $K_x$ iff it splits totally in $C$ and $R_x$, iff $k|p-1$ and $x$ is a $k$-th power mod $p$, iff $k|p-1$ and the order of $x$ mod $p$ divides $\frac{p-1}{k}$. In particular, for almost every $p$, if $p$ splits totally in $K_a$, then $p$ splits totally in $K_b$.

By Cebotarev, since $K_a$ and $K_b$ are Galois over $\mathbb{Q}$ with the same degree, this implies that $K_b \subset K_a$ hence $K_b=K_a$.

By Kummer theory (as $K_x/C$ is cyclic of Galois group $\mathbb{F}_k$), this implies that there are integers $0 \leq x,y < k$ not both zero such that $a^xb^y$ is a $k$-th power in $C$.

Taking norms, we see that $a^{(k-1)x}b^{y(k-1)}$ is the $k$-th power of a rational number. So $k|xv_s(a)+yv_s(b)$, $k|xv_t(a)+yv_t(b)$, which contradicts the assumption on $k,s,t$.

Aphelli
  • 38,604
  • 1
    Thank you for your answer! I honestly do not understand any of it (I'm not familiar with Galois Theory, maybe I should study it?), so I can't say if there are any mistakes. But I really appreciate the fact that you dedicated time to answer! (And, I'm curious, how did you come up with a proof? It doesn't seem easy!) – Noomkwah Oct 01 '21 at 18:55
  • 2
    I guess the main step was to guess how to use the divisibility of orders. But a few days ago, in another answer, I had used a link between $a$ being a $k$-th power mod $p$ and $p$ being a split prime in a certain Galois extension $K_a$ of $\mathbb{Q}$, so I started thinking of $k$-th powers. And then I remembered that the “classical” Cebotarev theorem meant that a given Galois extension of $\mathbb{Q}$ could be characterized by its split primes. That led directly to $K_b \subset K_a$. – Aphelli Oct 01 '21 at 19:44
  • 2
    By that point, I was confident that this field inclusion gave the result I wanted, but it took a little bit of messing around to figure out precisely how. $R_b=R_a$ was a logical step (using another answer from perhaps a couple of weeks ago spent thinking about what kind of Galois group $K_a$ had), and the same kind of considerations gave me the idea to look at $n_b$ and $n_a$. Then the rest felt standard enough to let me figure it out on my own. – Aphelli Oct 01 '21 at 19:48
  • 2
    I’m sorry for making this so involved that you couldn’t understand it! It’s indeed a very natural problem and maybe it has a more elementary solution (but number theory tends to be surprisingly intricate to approach – it’s its beauty and its curse, I guess). Still, I was glad to spend time on it and find the proof. (Also, Galois theory is not the scariest part of what I’m using. Cebotarev is. Still, if you have the time and the mindset for it, Galois theory is beautiful.) – Aphelli Oct 01 '21 at 19:54
  • Your answer inspired me to read about Cebotarev's theorem. It appears to be a beautiful and powerful theorem, which I expect will contribute to many important proofs in the future. – Robert Frost Dec 21 '22 at 14:22
  • @samerivertwice: yes, Cebotarev is a wonderful theorem, and it has a lot of applications to number theory indeed. – Aphelli Dec 22 '22 at 10:26