| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
For this problem, does anyone know what the new conjecture is supposed to be? I thought it might just be that the order of r multiplied by the order of s is NOT the order of rs, but I wasn't sure if there was another conjecture that could be made. --[[User:Clwarner|Clwarner]] 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | For this problem, does anyone know what the new conjecture is supposed to be? I thought it might just be that the order of r multiplied by the order of s is NOT the order of rs, but I wasn't sure if there was another conjecture that could be made. --[[User:Clwarner|Clwarner]] 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | The conjecture I made was that <math>\scriptstyle gcd(r,s)=1\ \leftrightarrow\ \mid U(r)\mid*\mid U(s)\mid=\mid U(rs)\mid</math>. | ||
| + | :--[[User:Narupley|Narupley]] 05:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:01, 4 February 2009
For this problem, does anyone know what the new conjecture is supposed to be? I thought it might just be that the order of r multiplied by the order of s is NOT the order of rs, but I wasn't sure if there was another conjecture that could be made. --Clwarner 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The conjecture I made was that $ \scriptstyle gcd(r,s)=1\ \leftrightarrow\ \mid U(r)\mid*\mid U(s)\mid=\mid U(rs)\mid $.
- --Narupley 05:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
