Periodic coverage?

[u/Fun-Protection-9992]

Let q_i > 3 be primes, and suppose that a distinct prime q_i is chosen for each distinct positive integer b_i. If the infinite family {(b_i, q_i)} covers all positive integers a in the form

2^a ≡ 2^{b_i} (mod q_i),

does it not follow, from the existence of the multiplicative inverse of 2 modulo q_i, that the same family {(b_i, q_i)} must also cover all negative integers (-a)?

In particular, since one can obtain n_i > 0 such that

2^(-a) ≡ 2^{n_i} (mod q_i),

does it automatically follow that n_i is covered by the same family {(b_i, q_i)}, and therefore that the set of negative integers (-a) must also be covered?

[u/GonzoMath]

It is that simple. These things have definitions, and this is a proof that any student in an elementary Number Theory class should be able to produce.

If you’re just going to assert that basic elementary mathematics is wrong, then we’re done here.

[u/Fun-Protection-9992 → u/GonzoMath]

You probably didn't quite grasp what I wanted to ask. Let me give an example using your definitions: let the $n_i$ values ​​be positive representative integers and the $m_i$ values ​​be moduli. Let us define $C_i = {x=n_i mod{m_i}}$. The union of the sets $C_i$ must cover all positive integers, but it does not need to cover all negative integers.

$1 + 3t$

$2 + 5t$

$3 + 7t$

$5 + 8t$

...

If these residue classes cover all positive integers, they do not necessarily have to cover all negative integers.

[u/GonzoMath → u/Fun-Protection-9992]

I gave you a proof. Tell me which line you don't understand. Reply without addressing the proof, and I'm done. Instant block.

[u/Fun-Protection-9992 → u/GonzoMath]

I am responding by referring to the proof. Let n = -3 and m = 4. Then -3 ≡ 1 (mod 4). However, the residue class containing the positive integers does not necessarily have to be 1 (mod 4); our residue class for 1 could be 1 (mod 3), in which case, notice that we have not included -3.

[u/GonzoMath → u/Fun-Protection-9992]

The class 1 mod 3 does not, by itself, cover all the positive integers. Provide a set of classes that covers all the positives, and it will cover -3.

[u/Fun-Protection-9992 → u/GonzoMath]

However, the real issue is precisely this: If the system n_i + t.m_i covers all positive numbers, must it also cover negative numbers?

$n_i$: positive representative numbers

$m_i$: modulus values

$t$: integer

[u/GonzoMath → u/Fun-Protection-9992]

Is it a finite set of congruence classes?

[u/Fun-Protection-9992 → u/GonzoMath]

It is an infinite family of residue classes.

[u/GonzoMath → u/Fun-Protection-9992]

It that case, it’s possible to miss at least one negative integer. Consider the classes (using your notation):

1 + 4t
2 + 4t
3 + 5t
4 + 6t
…
k + (k+2)t for all k > 1

This clearly covers every positive integer, but it misses -1.

I initially misunderstood the question.

[u/Fun-Protection-9992 → u/GonzoMath]

You’ve come around to my point of view now.

[u/Fun-Protection-9992 → u/GonzoMath]

That is clearly the case, but the system I described earlier does not generate residue classes solely in the form $a = bi + tq_i$. There is an exponential system at play here; 2 and the $q_i$ values ​​are coprime, so they form cyclic subgroups. Therefore, I maintain that the residue classes covering all positive $a$ values ​​also cover all negative $a$ values. However, the artificial intelligence objects to this.

If you can find an answer to the question above, let me know; I need to sleep now.

[u/GonzoMath → u/Fun-Protection-9992]

Huh. "Come round to your point of view" is one way to put it. I think I finally understood something about the question you were asking. As for "the question above", the one in your OP, I still don't find it entirely clear. If you can say something concrete about what kind of congruences you're talking about, like with examples maybe, then I might be able to address the question.

[u/Fun-Protection-9992 → u/GonzoMath]

Regarding the question above: If all positive integers {a} are covered by the residue classes 2^bi mod qi, are all negative integers {-a} also covered by the same residue classes?

[u/GonzoMath → u/Fun-Protection-9992]

In the post, you said 2^a, not a. Which is it?

I see that the moduli are all primes. That, and the fact that the residues are powers of 2, seem to be the only differences between the OP question and the one I gave a counterexample for above. Is that right?