Patterns in division graphs modulo $n$












6












$begingroup$


(I made an edit due to hints from Alex Ravsky. Thanks to him.)



General division graphs with nodes $1,2,dots N$ and an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ divides $m$ or $m$ divides $n$ are sparse and give rise to one interesting visual pattern.



In turn, division graphs modulo $N$ with nodes $1,2,dots N-1$ and an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$, i.e. when it exists a $k$ with $kcdot n equiv m pmod{N}$ or vice versa, are dense. Especially when $N$ is prime the division graph modulo $N$ is isomorphic to the complete $N-1$ graph.



So it makes sense to consider the non-division graphs modulo $N$ with an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ doesn't divide $m$ or $m$ doesn't divide $n$. (Note that this is not the complement of the division graph which has an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ doesn't divide $m$ and $m$ doesn't divide $n$.) These graphs are relatively sparse, and especially isomorphic to the empty $N-1$ graph when $N$ is prime.



For most composite numbers, these graphs don't reveal anything interesting, e.g. for $N=8$, $N=26$, and $N=90$:



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



But eventually interesting patterns emerge, e.g. for $N=77$, $N=91$, and $N=121$:



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



The distinctness of the observed patterns - nodes with a significantly higher degree than others, seen as dark spots with bright lines between them - is highest when $N$ is a product of two not too small primes, e.g. $77 = 7cdot 11$, $91 = 7cdot 13$, , $121= 11cdot 11$.



My questions are:





  1. How can the latter be explained?


  2. How can the specific high-degree numbers be explained?





The high-degree numbers for $N=77$ are $7, 11, 14,21,22, 21, 28, 33, 35,dots$, in general the multiples of the prime factors of $N$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Why is there no edge between $1$ and the even numbers in the graph for $N=8$? While $1$ divides all of them, it is not divisible by any them, or is it?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Košinár
    Jan 17 at 19:52


















6












$begingroup$


(I made an edit due to hints from Alex Ravsky. Thanks to him.)



General division graphs with nodes $1,2,dots N$ and an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ divides $m$ or $m$ divides $n$ are sparse and give rise to one interesting visual pattern.



In turn, division graphs modulo $N$ with nodes $1,2,dots N-1$ and an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$, i.e. when it exists a $k$ with $kcdot n equiv m pmod{N}$ or vice versa, are dense. Especially when $N$ is prime the division graph modulo $N$ is isomorphic to the complete $N-1$ graph.



So it makes sense to consider the non-division graphs modulo $N$ with an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ doesn't divide $m$ or $m$ doesn't divide $n$. (Note that this is not the complement of the division graph which has an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ doesn't divide $m$ and $m$ doesn't divide $n$.) These graphs are relatively sparse, and especially isomorphic to the empty $N-1$ graph when $N$ is prime.



For most composite numbers, these graphs don't reveal anything interesting, e.g. for $N=8$, $N=26$, and $N=90$:



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



But eventually interesting patterns emerge, e.g. for $N=77$, $N=91$, and $N=121$:



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



The distinctness of the observed patterns - nodes with a significantly higher degree than others, seen as dark spots with bright lines between them - is highest when $N$ is a product of two not too small primes, e.g. $77 = 7cdot 11$, $91 = 7cdot 13$, , $121= 11cdot 11$.



My questions are:





  1. How can the latter be explained?


  2. How can the specific high-degree numbers be explained?





The high-degree numbers for $N=77$ are $7, 11, 14,21,22, 21, 28, 33, 35,dots$, in general the multiples of the prime factors of $N$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Why is there no edge between $1$ and the even numbers in the graph for $N=8$? While $1$ divides all of them, it is not divisible by any them, or is it?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Košinár
    Jan 17 at 19:52
















6












6








6


1



$begingroup$


(I made an edit due to hints from Alex Ravsky. Thanks to him.)



General division graphs with nodes $1,2,dots N$ and an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ divides $m$ or $m$ divides $n$ are sparse and give rise to one interesting visual pattern.



In turn, division graphs modulo $N$ with nodes $1,2,dots N-1$ and an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$, i.e. when it exists a $k$ with $kcdot n equiv m pmod{N}$ or vice versa, are dense. Especially when $N$ is prime the division graph modulo $N$ is isomorphic to the complete $N-1$ graph.



So it makes sense to consider the non-division graphs modulo $N$ with an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ doesn't divide $m$ or $m$ doesn't divide $n$. (Note that this is not the complement of the division graph which has an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ doesn't divide $m$ and $m$ doesn't divide $n$.) These graphs are relatively sparse, and especially isomorphic to the empty $N-1$ graph when $N$ is prime.



For most composite numbers, these graphs don't reveal anything interesting, e.g. for $N=8$, $N=26$, and $N=90$:



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



But eventually interesting patterns emerge, e.g. for $N=77$, $N=91$, and $N=121$:



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



The distinctness of the observed patterns - nodes with a significantly higher degree than others, seen as dark spots with bright lines between them - is highest when $N$ is a product of two not too small primes, e.g. $77 = 7cdot 11$, $91 = 7cdot 13$, , $121= 11cdot 11$.



My questions are:





  1. How can the latter be explained?


  2. How can the specific high-degree numbers be explained?





The high-degree numbers for $N=77$ are $7, 11, 14,21,22, 21, 28, 33, 35,dots$, in general the multiples of the prime factors of $N$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




(I made an edit due to hints from Alex Ravsky. Thanks to him.)



General division graphs with nodes $1,2,dots N$ and an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ divides $m$ or $m$ divides $n$ are sparse and give rise to one interesting visual pattern.



In turn, division graphs modulo $N$ with nodes $1,2,dots N-1$ and an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$, i.e. when it exists a $k$ with $kcdot n equiv m pmod{N}$ or vice versa, are dense. Especially when $N$ is prime the division graph modulo $N$ is isomorphic to the complete $N-1$ graph.



So it makes sense to consider the non-division graphs modulo $N$ with an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ doesn't divide $m$ or $m$ doesn't divide $n$. (Note that this is not the complement of the division graph which has an edge between $n$ and $m$ when $n$ doesn't divide $m$ and $m$ doesn't divide $n$.) These graphs are relatively sparse, and especially isomorphic to the empty $N-1$ graph when $N$ is prime.



For most composite numbers, these graphs don't reveal anything interesting, e.g. for $N=8$, $N=26$, and $N=90$:



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



But eventually interesting patterns emerge, e.g. for $N=77$, $N=91$, and $N=121$:



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



The distinctness of the observed patterns - nodes with a significantly higher degree than others, seen as dark spots with bright lines between them - is highest when $N$ is a product of two not too small primes, e.g. $77 = 7cdot 11$, $91 = 7cdot 13$, , $121= 11cdot 11$.



My questions are:





  1. How can the latter be explained?


  2. How can the specific high-degree numbers be explained?





The high-degree numbers for $N=77$ are $7, 11, 14,21,22, 21, 28, 33, 35,dots$, in general the multiples of the prime factors of $N$.







elementary-number-theory graph-theory modular-arithmetic divisibility visualization






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 18 at 7:09









Alex Ravsky

42.6k32383




42.6k32383










asked Jan 13 at 12:47









Hans StrickerHans Stricker

6,48443994




6,48443994












  • $begingroup$
    Why is there no edge between $1$ and the even numbers in the graph for $N=8$? While $1$ divides all of them, it is not divisible by any them, or is it?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Košinár
    Jan 17 at 19:52




















  • $begingroup$
    Why is there no edge between $1$ and the even numbers in the graph for $N=8$? While $1$ divides all of them, it is not divisible by any them, or is it?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Košinár
    Jan 17 at 19:52


















$begingroup$
Why is there no edge between $1$ and the even numbers in the graph for $N=8$? While $1$ divides all of them, it is not divisible by any them, or is it?
$endgroup$
– Peter Košinár
Jan 17 at 19:52






$begingroup$
Why is there no edge between $1$ and the even numbers in the graph for $N=8$? While $1$ divides all of them, it is not divisible by any them, or is it?
$endgroup$
– Peter Košinár
Jan 17 at 19:52












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2





+100







$begingroup$

It is easy to check that a number $n$ divides $m$ modulo $N$ iff $(N,n)|m$ iff $(N,n)|(N,m)$, where $(N,n)$ (resp. $(N,m)$) is the greatest common divisor of the numbers $N$ and $n$ (resp., $m$). Thus $n$ and $m$ are adjacent in the graph iff not $(N,n)|(N,m)$ or not $(N,m)|(N,n)$, that is when $(N,n)ne (N,m)$. Thus the graph is a complete $tau(N)-1$-partite graph, where $tau(N)$ is the number of divisors of the number $N$, parts of the partition of the graph are indexed by divisors of $N$ (which are less than $N$), and a part $[d]$ corresponding to a divisor $d$ consists of all numbers $n$ between $1$ and $N-1$ such that $(N,n)=d$. For instance, for the graph for $N=8$ at the first picture should be $3$-partite with the parts $[1]={1,3,5,7}$, $[2]={2,6}$, and $[4]={4}$. In particular, in the first figure $1$ also has to be adjacent to $2$, $4$, and $6$, because not $(2|1)$, not $(4|1)$, and $(6|1)$. Since a vertex of the graph is adjacent exactly to vertises of all parts but its own, the set of vertices of large(st) degree are vertices from small(est) parts. For instance, for even $N$ the largest degree has a unique vertex $N/2$ (see the pictures for vertex $4$ for $N=8$, vertex $13$ for $N=26$, and vertex $45$ for $N=90$); this is so because for a divisor $nne N/2$ of $N$ part $[n]$ contains at least two vertices $n$ and $N-n$. In general, part $[d]$ consists of $varphi(N/d)$ vertices, where $varphi$ is Euler function. That is a vertex $n$ has a largest degree iff $varphi(N/(N,n))$ is the smallest, that is iff $ N/(N,n)$ is the smallest prime divisor $p(N)$ of $N$. There are $p(N)-1$ such vertices $n$, namely, vertices $kN/p(N)$ with $k=1,dots, p(N)-1$. When $N=p_1p_2$ is a product of two prime numbers then the graph is $3$-partite with parts $[1]$ of size $N-p_1-p_2+1$, $[p_1]$ of size $p_2-1$, and $[p_2]$ of size $p_1-1$. For instance, for $N=77$, $[7]=7,14,21,35,dots, 70$ and $[11]=11,22,33,dots, 66$, see the fourth and fifth pictures. If $N=p^2$ for a prime number $p$ then the graph is $2$-partite, with the part $[1]$ of size $[N-p]$, and $[p]$ of size $p-1$, see the last picture for $p=11$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The graphs are defined as symmetric (undirected) graphs, right. I wanted to make this clear by saying "draw a line between $n$ and $m$" instead of "draw an arrow from $n$ to $m$". The full definition so would have to be: $n$ and $m$ are related when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 8:28










  • $begingroup$
    @HansStricker OK, but then in a complement of a division graph modulo $N$ there is an edge between $n$ and $m$ iff $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$ and $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$. In particular, the graph at the first picture is not complement of a division graph, because it has an edge between $3$ and $6$, whereas $3$ divides $6$, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Jan 16 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are right. I have to think about it, maybe I made a wrong argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 9:40










  • $begingroup$
    The graphs I'm talking about are not the complements of division graphs: There's not an edge between $n$ and $m$ when neither $n|m$ nor $m|n$ (modulo $N$ omitted), i.e. NOT($n|m$ OR $m|n$) = NOT($n|m$) AND NOT($m|n$), but when NOT($n|m$) OR NOT($m|n$). Of course this makes a huge difference conceptually, thanks for pointing this out! So you don't get the "complement" by just swapping edges and non-edges, but you have to calculate it from sratch. (Should I edit my question, what do you suggest?)
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:13








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Done. Do you find it OK?
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:49











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3071980%2fpatterns-in-division-graphs-modulo-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2





+100







$begingroup$

It is easy to check that a number $n$ divides $m$ modulo $N$ iff $(N,n)|m$ iff $(N,n)|(N,m)$, where $(N,n)$ (resp. $(N,m)$) is the greatest common divisor of the numbers $N$ and $n$ (resp., $m$). Thus $n$ and $m$ are adjacent in the graph iff not $(N,n)|(N,m)$ or not $(N,m)|(N,n)$, that is when $(N,n)ne (N,m)$. Thus the graph is a complete $tau(N)-1$-partite graph, where $tau(N)$ is the number of divisors of the number $N$, parts of the partition of the graph are indexed by divisors of $N$ (which are less than $N$), and a part $[d]$ corresponding to a divisor $d$ consists of all numbers $n$ between $1$ and $N-1$ such that $(N,n)=d$. For instance, for the graph for $N=8$ at the first picture should be $3$-partite with the parts $[1]={1,3,5,7}$, $[2]={2,6}$, and $[4]={4}$. In particular, in the first figure $1$ also has to be adjacent to $2$, $4$, and $6$, because not $(2|1)$, not $(4|1)$, and $(6|1)$. Since a vertex of the graph is adjacent exactly to vertises of all parts but its own, the set of vertices of large(st) degree are vertices from small(est) parts. For instance, for even $N$ the largest degree has a unique vertex $N/2$ (see the pictures for vertex $4$ for $N=8$, vertex $13$ for $N=26$, and vertex $45$ for $N=90$); this is so because for a divisor $nne N/2$ of $N$ part $[n]$ contains at least two vertices $n$ and $N-n$. In general, part $[d]$ consists of $varphi(N/d)$ vertices, where $varphi$ is Euler function. That is a vertex $n$ has a largest degree iff $varphi(N/(N,n))$ is the smallest, that is iff $ N/(N,n)$ is the smallest prime divisor $p(N)$ of $N$. There are $p(N)-1$ such vertices $n$, namely, vertices $kN/p(N)$ with $k=1,dots, p(N)-1$. When $N=p_1p_2$ is a product of two prime numbers then the graph is $3$-partite with parts $[1]$ of size $N-p_1-p_2+1$, $[p_1]$ of size $p_2-1$, and $[p_2]$ of size $p_1-1$. For instance, for $N=77$, $[7]=7,14,21,35,dots, 70$ and $[11]=11,22,33,dots, 66$, see the fourth and fifth pictures. If $N=p^2$ for a prime number $p$ then the graph is $2$-partite, with the part $[1]$ of size $[N-p]$, and $[p]$ of size $p-1$, see the last picture for $p=11$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The graphs are defined as symmetric (undirected) graphs, right. I wanted to make this clear by saying "draw a line between $n$ and $m$" instead of "draw an arrow from $n$ to $m$". The full definition so would have to be: $n$ and $m$ are related when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 8:28










  • $begingroup$
    @HansStricker OK, but then in a complement of a division graph modulo $N$ there is an edge between $n$ and $m$ iff $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$ and $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$. In particular, the graph at the first picture is not complement of a division graph, because it has an edge between $3$ and $6$, whereas $3$ divides $6$, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Jan 16 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are right. I have to think about it, maybe I made a wrong argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 9:40










  • $begingroup$
    The graphs I'm talking about are not the complements of division graphs: There's not an edge between $n$ and $m$ when neither $n|m$ nor $m|n$ (modulo $N$ omitted), i.e. NOT($n|m$ OR $m|n$) = NOT($n|m$) AND NOT($m|n$), but when NOT($n|m$) OR NOT($m|n$). Of course this makes a huge difference conceptually, thanks for pointing this out! So you don't get the "complement" by just swapping edges and non-edges, but you have to calculate it from sratch. (Should I edit my question, what do you suggest?)
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:13








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Done. Do you find it OK?
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:49
















2





+100







$begingroup$

It is easy to check that a number $n$ divides $m$ modulo $N$ iff $(N,n)|m$ iff $(N,n)|(N,m)$, where $(N,n)$ (resp. $(N,m)$) is the greatest common divisor of the numbers $N$ and $n$ (resp., $m$). Thus $n$ and $m$ are adjacent in the graph iff not $(N,n)|(N,m)$ or not $(N,m)|(N,n)$, that is when $(N,n)ne (N,m)$. Thus the graph is a complete $tau(N)-1$-partite graph, where $tau(N)$ is the number of divisors of the number $N$, parts of the partition of the graph are indexed by divisors of $N$ (which are less than $N$), and a part $[d]$ corresponding to a divisor $d$ consists of all numbers $n$ between $1$ and $N-1$ such that $(N,n)=d$. For instance, for the graph for $N=8$ at the first picture should be $3$-partite with the parts $[1]={1,3,5,7}$, $[2]={2,6}$, and $[4]={4}$. In particular, in the first figure $1$ also has to be adjacent to $2$, $4$, and $6$, because not $(2|1)$, not $(4|1)$, and $(6|1)$. Since a vertex of the graph is adjacent exactly to vertises of all parts but its own, the set of vertices of large(st) degree are vertices from small(est) parts. For instance, for even $N$ the largest degree has a unique vertex $N/2$ (see the pictures for vertex $4$ for $N=8$, vertex $13$ for $N=26$, and vertex $45$ for $N=90$); this is so because for a divisor $nne N/2$ of $N$ part $[n]$ contains at least two vertices $n$ and $N-n$. In general, part $[d]$ consists of $varphi(N/d)$ vertices, where $varphi$ is Euler function. That is a vertex $n$ has a largest degree iff $varphi(N/(N,n))$ is the smallest, that is iff $ N/(N,n)$ is the smallest prime divisor $p(N)$ of $N$. There are $p(N)-1$ such vertices $n$, namely, vertices $kN/p(N)$ with $k=1,dots, p(N)-1$. When $N=p_1p_2$ is a product of two prime numbers then the graph is $3$-partite with parts $[1]$ of size $N-p_1-p_2+1$, $[p_1]$ of size $p_2-1$, and $[p_2]$ of size $p_1-1$. For instance, for $N=77$, $[7]=7,14,21,35,dots, 70$ and $[11]=11,22,33,dots, 66$, see the fourth and fifth pictures. If $N=p^2$ for a prime number $p$ then the graph is $2$-partite, with the part $[1]$ of size $[N-p]$, and $[p]$ of size $p-1$, see the last picture for $p=11$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The graphs are defined as symmetric (undirected) graphs, right. I wanted to make this clear by saying "draw a line between $n$ and $m$" instead of "draw an arrow from $n$ to $m$". The full definition so would have to be: $n$ and $m$ are related when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 8:28










  • $begingroup$
    @HansStricker OK, but then in a complement of a division graph modulo $N$ there is an edge between $n$ and $m$ iff $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$ and $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$. In particular, the graph at the first picture is not complement of a division graph, because it has an edge between $3$ and $6$, whereas $3$ divides $6$, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Jan 16 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are right. I have to think about it, maybe I made a wrong argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 9:40










  • $begingroup$
    The graphs I'm talking about are not the complements of division graphs: There's not an edge between $n$ and $m$ when neither $n|m$ nor $m|n$ (modulo $N$ omitted), i.e. NOT($n|m$ OR $m|n$) = NOT($n|m$) AND NOT($m|n$), but when NOT($n|m$) OR NOT($m|n$). Of course this makes a huge difference conceptually, thanks for pointing this out! So you don't get the "complement" by just swapping edges and non-edges, but you have to calculate it from sratch. (Should I edit my question, what do you suggest?)
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:13








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Done. Do you find it OK?
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:49














2





+100







2





+100



2




+100



$begingroup$

It is easy to check that a number $n$ divides $m$ modulo $N$ iff $(N,n)|m$ iff $(N,n)|(N,m)$, where $(N,n)$ (resp. $(N,m)$) is the greatest common divisor of the numbers $N$ and $n$ (resp., $m$). Thus $n$ and $m$ are adjacent in the graph iff not $(N,n)|(N,m)$ or not $(N,m)|(N,n)$, that is when $(N,n)ne (N,m)$. Thus the graph is a complete $tau(N)-1$-partite graph, where $tau(N)$ is the number of divisors of the number $N$, parts of the partition of the graph are indexed by divisors of $N$ (which are less than $N$), and a part $[d]$ corresponding to a divisor $d$ consists of all numbers $n$ between $1$ and $N-1$ such that $(N,n)=d$. For instance, for the graph for $N=8$ at the first picture should be $3$-partite with the parts $[1]={1,3,5,7}$, $[2]={2,6}$, and $[4]={4}$. In particular, in the first figure $1$ also has to be adjacent to $2$, $4$, and $6$, because not $(2|1)$, not $(4|1)$, and $(6|1)$. Since a vertex of the graph is adjacent exactly to vertises of all parts but its own, the set of vertices of large(st) degree are vertices from small(est) parts. For instance, for even $N$ the largest degree has a unique vertex $N/2$ (see the pictures for vertex $4$ for $N=8$, vertex $13$ for $N=26$, and vertex $45$ for $N=90$); this is so because for a divisor $nne N/2$ of $N$ part $[n]$ contains at least two vertices $n$ and $N-n$. In general, part $[d]$ consists of $varphi(N/d)$ vertices, where $varphi$ is Euler function. That is a vertex $n$ has a largest degree iff $varphi(N/(N,n))$ is the smallest, that is iff $ N/(N,n)$ is the smallest prime divisor $p(N)$ of $N$. There are $p(N)-1$ such vertices $n$, namely, vertices $kN/p(N)$ with $k=1,dots, p(N)-1$. When $N=p_1p_2$ is a product of two prime numbers then the graph is $3$-partite with parts $[1]$ of size $N-p_1-p_2+1$, $[p_1]$ of size $p_2-1$, and $[p_2]$ of size $p_1-1$. For instance, for $N=77$, $[7]=7,14,21,35,dots, 70$ and $[11]=11,22,33,dots, 66$, see the fourth and fifth pictures. If $N=p^2$ for a prime number $p$ then the graph is $2$-partite, with the part $[1]$ of size $[N-p]$, and $[p]$ of size $p-1$, see the last picture for $p=11$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



It is easy to check that a number $n$ divides $m$ modulo $N$ iff $(N,n)|m$ iff $(N,n)|(N,m)$, where $(N,n)$ (resp. $(N,m)$) is the greatest common divisor of the numbers $N$ and $n$ (resp., $m$). Thus $n$ and $m$ are adjacent in the graph iff not $(N,n)|(N,m)$ or not $(N,m)|(N,n)$, that is when $(N,n)ne (N,m)$. Thus the graph is a complete $tau(N)-1$-partite graph, where $tau(N)$ is the number of divisors of the number $N$, parts of the partition of the graph are indexed by divisors of $N$ (which are less than $N$), and a part $[d]$ corresponding to a divisor $d$ consists of all numbers $n$ between $1$ and $N-1$ such that $(N,n)=d$. For instance, for the graph for $N=8$ at the first picture should be $3$-partite with the parts $[1]={1,3,5,7}$, $[2]={2,6}$, and $[4]={4}$. In particular, in the first figure $1$ also has to be adjacent to $2$, $4$, and $6$, because not $(2|1)$, not $(4|1)$, and $(6|1)$. Since a vertex of the graph is adjacent exactly to vertises of all parts but its own, the set of vertices of large(st) degree are vertices from small(est) parts. For instance, for even $N$ the largest degree has a unique vertex $N/2$ (see the pictures for vertex $4$ for $N=8$, vertex $13$ for $N=26$, and vertex $45$ for $N=90$); this is so because for a divisor $nne N/2$ of $N$ part $[n]$ contains at least two vertices $n$ and $N-n$. In general, part $[d]$ consists of $varphi(N/d)$ vertices, where $varphi$ is Euler function. That is a vertex $n$ has a largest degree iff $varphi(N/(N,n))$ is the smallest, that is iff $ N/(N,n)$ is the smallest prime divisor $p(N)$ of $N$. There are $p(N)-1$ such vertices $n$, namely, vertices $kN/p(N)$ with $k=1,dots, p(N)-1$. When $N=p_1p_2$ is a product of two prime numbers then the graph is $3$-partite with parts $[1]$ of size $N-p_1-p_2+1$, $[p_1]$ of size $p_2-1$, and $[p_2]$ of size $p_1-1$. For instance, for $N=77$, $[7]=7,14,21,35,dots, 70$ and $[11]=11,22,33,dots, 66$, see the fourth and fifth pictures. If $N=p^2$ for a prime number $p$ then the graph is $2$-partite, with the part $[1]$ of size $[N-p]$, and $[p]$ of size $p-1$, see the last picture for $p=11$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 18 at 7:08

























answered Jan 16 at 4:22









Alex RavskyAlex Ravsky

42.6k32383




42.6k32383








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The graphs are defined as symmetric (undirected) graphs, right. I wanted to make this clear by saying "draw a line between $n$ and $m$" instead of "draw an arrow from $n$ to $m$". The full definition so would have to be: $n$ and $m$ are related when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 8:28










  • $begingroup$
    @HansStricker OK, but then in a complement of a division graph modulo $N$ there is an edge between $n$ and $m$ iff $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$ and $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$. In particular, the graph at the first picture is not complement of a division graph, because it has an edge between $3$ and $6$, whereas $3$ divides $6$, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Jan 16 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are right. I have to think about it, maybe I made a wrong argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 9:40










  • $begingroup$
    The graphs I'm talking about are not the complements of division graphs: There's not an edge between $n$ and $m$ when neither $n|m$ nor $m|n$ (modulo $N$ omitted), i.e. NOT($n|m$ OR $m|n$) = NOT($n|m$) AND NOT($m|n$), but when NOT($n|m$) OR NOT($m|n$). Of course this makes a huge difference conceptually, thanks for pointing this out! So you don't get the "complement" by just swapping edges and non-edges, but you have to calculate it from sratch. (Should I edit my question, what do you suggest?)
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:13








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Done. Do you find it OK?
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:49














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The graphs are defined as symmetric (undirected) graphs, right. I wanted to make this clear by saying "draw a line between $n$ and $m$" instead of "draw an arrow from $n$ to $m$". The full definition so would have to be: $n$ and $m$ are related when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 8:28










  • $begingroup$
    @HansStricker OK, but then in a complement of a division graph modulo $N$ there is an edge between $n$ and $m$ iff $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$ and $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$. In particular, the graph at the first picture is not complement of a division graph, because it has an edge between $3$ and $6$, whereas $3$ divides $6$, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Jan 16 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are right. I have to think about it, maybe I made a wrong argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 9:40










  • $begingroup$
    The graphs I'm talking about are not the complements of division graphs: There's not an edge between $n$ and $m$ when neither $n|m$ nor $m|n$ (modulo $N$ omitted), i.e. NOT($n|m$ OR $m|n$) = NOT($n|m$) AND NOT($m|n$), but when NOT($n|m$) OR NOT($m|n$). Of course this makes a huge difference conceptually, thanks for pointing this out! So you don't get the "complement" by just swapping edges and non-edges, but you have to calculate it from sratch. (Should I edit my question, what do you suggest?)
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:13








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Done. Do you find it OK?
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Stricker
    Jan 16 at 10:49








1




1




$begingroup$
The graphs are defined as symmetric (undirected) graphs, right. I wanted to make this clear by saying "draw a line between $n$ and $m$" instead of "draw an arrow from $n$ to $m$". The full definition so would have to be: $n$ and $m$ are related when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$.
$endgroup$
– Hans Stricker
Jan 16 at 8:28




$begingroup$
The graphs are defined as symmetric (undirected) graphs, right. I wanted to make this clear by saying "draw a line between $n$ and $m$" instead of "draw an arrow from $n$ to $m$". The full definition so would have to be: $n$ and $m$ are related when $n|m$ modulo $N$ or $m|n$ modulo $N$.
$endgroup$
– Hans Stricker
Jan 16 at 8:28












$begingroup$
@HansStricker OK, but then in a complement of a division graph modulo $N$ there is an edge between $n$ and $m$ iff $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$ and $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$. In particular, the graph at the first picture is not complement of a division graph, because it has an edge between $3$ and $6$, whereas $3$ divides $6$, right?
$endgroup$
– Alex Ravsky
Jan 16 at 9:35




$begingroup$
@HansStricker OK, but then in a complement of a division graph modulo $N$ there is an edge between $n$ and $m$ iff $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$ and $n$ does not divide $m$ modulo $N$. In particular, the graph at the first picture is not complement of a division graph, because it has an edge between $3$ and $6$, whereas $3$ divides $6$, right?
$endgroup$
– Alex Ravsky
Jan 16 at 9:35




1




1




$begingroup$
You are right. I have to think about it, maybe I made a wrong argument.
$endgroup$
– Hans Stricker
Jan 16 at 9:40




$begingroup$
You are right. I have to think about it, maybe I made a wrong argument.
$endgroup$
– Hans Stricker
Jan 16 at 9:40












$begingroup$
The graphs I'm talking about are not the complements of division graphs: There's not an edge between $n$ and $m$ when neither $n|m$ nor $m|n$ (modulo $N$ omitted), i.e. NOT($n|m$ OR $m|n$) = NOT($n|m$) AND NOT($m|n$), but when NOT($n|m$) OR NOT($m|n$). Of course this makes a huge difference conceptually, thanks for pointing this out! So you don't get the "complement" by just swapping edges and non-edges, but you have to calculate it from sratch. (Should I edit my question, what do you suggest?)
$endgroup$
– Hans Stricker
Jan 16 at 10:13






$begingroup$
The graphs I'm talking about are not the complements of division graphs: There's not an edge between $n$ and $m$ when neither $n|m$ nor $m|n$ (modulo $N$ omitted), i.e. NOT($n|m$ OR $m|n$) = NOT($n|m$) AND NOT($m|n$), but when NOT($n|m$) OR NOT($m|n$). Of course this makes a huge difference conceptually, thanks for pointing this out! So you don't get the "complement" by just swapping edges and non-edges, but you have to calculate it from sratch. (Should I edit my question, what do you suggest?)
$endgroup$
– Hans Stricker
Jan 16 at 10:13






1




1




$begingroup$
Done. Do you find it OK?
$endgroup$
– Hans Stricker
Jan 16 at 10:49




$begingroup$
Done. Do you find it OK?
$endgroup$
– Hans Stricker
Jan 16 at 10:49


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3071980%2fpatterns-in-division-graphs-modulo-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Questions related to Moebius Transform of Characteristic Function of the Primes

List of scandals in India

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?