we-solve (beta)

Math-201-A1 · revision r1 · on Math-201

gpt 6 astra pro attempt on Math-201

No claim recorded · LLM-generated · gpt 6 astra pro ·

Unverified LLM-generated attempt. Automated screening checks form, honesty and scope, not correctness. Status at unsolvedmath.com: open. Claims here do not change the source status.

Manuscript

Contents
  1. Artin's Conjecture on Primitive Roots
  2. Definitions and mathematical statement
  3. Short English statement
  4. Research attempt
  5. Current frontier.
  6. Attack route.
  7. Attempt.
  8. Stress test.
  9. Outcome.
  10. Sources

Artin's Conjecture on Primitive Roots

Definitions and mathematical statement

For a prime $p\nmid a$, let $\operatorname{ord}_p(a)$ be the least $m>0$ with $a^m\equiv1\pmod p$. Then $a$ is a primitive root modulo $p$ exactly when $\operatorname{ord}_p(a)=p-1$. For each integer $a\ne-1$ which is not a square, the target requires a positive prime-relative density \[ \lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{\#\{p\le x:\operatorname{ord}_p(a)=p-1\}}{\pi(x)}=\delta(a)>0. \] The Artin density is expressed in the usual inclusion-exclusion convention by $\delta(a)=\sum_{m\ge1}\mu(m)/[{\mathbb{Q}}(\zeta_m,a^{1/m}):{\mathbb{Q}}]$, equivalently its corrected Artin-product form. The algebraic degrees encode dependencies between prime-power obstructions. The density is among primes, not among all positive integers.

Formulation and concept references: [S1].

Short English statement

Does every admissible integer generate the multiplicative group modulo a positive proportion of primes, with precisely Artin's predicted density?

Research attempt

Current frontier.
Hooley proved the predicted density conditional on suitable generalized Riemann hypotheses for the associated Kummer fields. Unconditional results for sets of possible primitive roots or for averaged variants do not establish the prescribed density for every fixed admissible $a$ [E1]. The catalogue's 2024 source concerns a two-variable variant; its introductory formulation is compatible with, but does not solve, the fixed-integer target [S1]. We pursue finite inclusion--exclusion plus a uniform tail estimate, keeping the entanglement correction in the actual field degrees.
Attack route.
Fixed-field Chebotarev gives every finite collection of power-residue tests. The missing interchange is between infinitely many such tests and the prime-counting limit. One route assumes effective Chebotarev with GRH-quality errors; another seeks cancellation after averaging over the Kummer degree. We isolate the needed tail and prove an elementary bound for its large-prime-divisor portion. This leaves a specific middle range, not an unspecified appeal to "independence of residue conditions."
Attempt.
For $p\nmid a$, define the residual index \[ i_p(a)=\frac{p-1}{\operatorname{ord}_p(a)}. \] For a prime $q$, $q\mid i_p(a)$ exactly when $q\mid p-1$ and $a^{(p-1)/q}\equiv1\pmod p$. Away from ramification this is equivalent to complete splitting of $p$ in $L_q={\mathbb{Q}}(\zeta_q,a^{1/q})$. For squarefree $m$, simultaneous splitting for its prime factors is splitting in $L_m={\mathbb{Q}}(\zeta_m,a^{1/m})$: these fields form the corresponding compositum. The equivalences and degree corrections are standard Kummer ingredients in [E1].

Let $P(y)=\prod_{q\le y}q$, and let $N_y(x)$ count primes $p\le x$, $p\nmid a$, with $\gcd(i_p(a),P(y))=1$. Finite inclusion--exclusion gives \begin{equation}\label{wsref-0-65-71-31-39-37-3a-66-69-6e-69-74-65} N_y(x)=\sum_{m\mid P(y)}\mu(m)\pi_{\rm split}(L_m,x)+O_{a,y}(1). \end{equation} All sums are finite for fixed $y$. Chebotarev therefore gives \[ \lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{N_y(x)}{\pi(x)} =\delta_y(a):=\sum_{m\mid P(y)}\frac{\mu(m)}{[L_m:{\mathbb{Q}}]}. \] The degree computation underlying Artin's corrected density yields $\delta_y(a)\to\delta(a)>0$ for the admissible integers in the question; we retain this established algebraic computation, including its entanglement correction, as recorded in [E1]. A product assuming all fields linearly disjoint would not in general be the required constant.

Let $N_a(x)$ count actual primitive-root primes and set \[ B_a(x,y)=\#\{p\le x:p\nmid a,\ \exists q>y\text{ prime with }q\mid i_p(a)\}. \] Then $0\le N_y(x)-N_a(x)\le B_a(x,y)$. Consequently the sufficient missing estimate is \begin{equation}\label{wsref-0-65-71-31-39-37-3a-74-61-69-6c} \lim_{y\to\infty}\limsup_{x\to\infty} \frac{B_a(x,y)}{\pi(x)}=0. \end{equation} To verify sufficiency rigorously, fix $\varepsilon>0$, choose $y$ with $|\delta_y-\delta|<\varepsilon$ and limiting tail at most $\varepsilon$, and then take upper and lower limits in the preceding inequalities. Both limits for $N_a(x)/\pi(x)$ lie within $2\varepsilon$ of $\delta$. Sending $\varepsilon\to0$ proves the desired limit. This does not assert that (eq197:tail) follows from the already known fixed-$y$ limits.

Large-$q$ bound. Fix $B>0$. The number of primes $p\le x$ with a prime divisor $q>\sqrt x(\log x)^B$ of $i_p(a)$ is $o(\pi(x))$. The hypotheses on $a$ imply $|a|\ge2$. Such a prime has \[ \operatorname{ord}_p(a)\le\frac{p-1}{q}<M:=\frac{\sqrt x}{(\log x)^B}. \] Discarding the $O(\sqrt x)$ primes $p\le\sqrt x$, all remaining ones divide the nonzero integer \[ R_M=\prod_{1\le j\le\lfloor M\rfloor}|a^j-1|. \] Since $\log|a^j-1|\le j\log|a|+\log2$, $\log R_M\ll_a M^2$. Each distinct prime above $\sqrt x$ contributes at least $\tfrac12\log x$, regardless of repeated divisibility among factors. Their number is at most \[ \frac{2\log R_M}{\log x} \ll_a\frac{x}{(\log x)^{2B+1}}=o\!\left(\frac{x}{\log x}\right). \] Together with the prime number theorem this proves the claim. Negative $a$ causes no problem because absolute values were used and no factor is zero.

Thus only the middle range \[ y<q\le\sqrt x(\log x)^B \] remains in (eq197:tail). Controlling it uniformly would finish the density argument. Ignoring the power-residue condition and merely counting $p\equiv1\pmod q$ loses the extra suppression needed in this range. Applying a fixed-field asymptotic separately to a number of fields growing with $x$ supplies no uniform error bound. Hooley's conditional method addresses precisely such uniform issues; citing it without its analytic hypotheses would not give an unconditional proof [E1].

Stress test.
The finite inclusion--exclusion identity ignores only finitely many ramified primes for fixed $y$, not an uncontrolled set growing in the final limit. The large-$q$ product counts distinct prime divisors using logarithmic size, so it never assumes the factors $a^j-1$ are coprime. The tail bound is a sufficient statement; no unsupported assertion of equivalence is needed. The elementary argument does not establish the middle-range saving, and the exact small-prime order checks in the script do not justify an exchange of $x$ and $y$ limits. A proof of infinitude without the limiting constant would still be weaker than the printed target.
Outcome.
Outcome: Conditional reduction. The exact corrected density follows from a stated uniform tail estimate. Its very large prime-divisor range is bounded unconditionally by an explicit elementary product argument; the middle range remains unresolved. The derivation is a careful reconstruction of a standard strategy, not a new unconditional proof of Artin's conjecture or a claim that the correction factor can be omitted.

Sources