Mr. Y

Thanks for the advices.Cya all :)

Surely.I am on a gap year and in 4 month I will have to take a text for physics and math at uni .Surfing on the internet I've read that it's better to have a solid base in mathematics rather than physics since at uni you will start again from scratch and then you will learn the physics along the way.I don't know if this is true or just blind talk about the real truth.

Hello guys ,I would like to ask you a surely banal question but really important for me:does the study of physics start from scratch at university (of course with a more detailed method + calculus etc.. ) ?Is it best to have a solid base in mathematics rather than physics ?

@alarge Alright.Thanks again for your time.I am off.

@Alarge Okay,I will do that.One last question:is there not at all a physics textbook with a flavour for problem-solving techniques ? Thanks for your time .

I feel like I learn better from books rather than looking videos (I guess this is subjective)...the annoying this is that there's really no problem for the choice of math textbooks because there are thousands of types of math books,but for physics there's always one size fits it all...

@alarge Alright.Then what is the best textbook for self-study ?

I am not sure what you mean.We covered every topic(last one was electromagnetism) but the problem is that I come from a classical high school (latin,greek and so on) so I don't know if I've covered them well enough.However my math skills are decent from what I can say.

@alarge My fear is that these books only work the simple exercises and leave me at the end of the chapter with harder exercises.Also I don't want to start already studying at university level,I want to be sure that my background will be okay when I will enroll.

@Alarge Well the standard curriculum used at high school level(I finished high school and am taking gap year )

I feel a little bit embarassed to join up a conversation like that and asking for some suggestions on physics textbooks oriented on problem-solving ,but that's what I've been told to do...so if you can help I will be really gratefull....

hey guys

(I missed a question mark in the last comment....)

Just a random thought:Do humans need to be entirely humans ?What if we would put all of our effort on robotics science and everyone ,by 100 years, will have implemented in their body mechanical parts that will allow everyone to be somewhat "superhumans".So the challenge would be to get the best scientists to work on that and the rest of human kind to practice their math skills for 100 years.This is somewhat more doable in my opinion.

Just a random thought:Do humans need to be entirely humans ?What if we would put all of our effort on robotics science and everyone ,by 100 years, will have implemented in they body mechanical parts such that they will allow everyone to be somewhat "superhumans".So the challenge would be to get the best scientists to work on that and the rest of humans to practice their math skills (lol).

Hmm okay,thanks guys for your patience :P cya

Thanks for your time ;)

Alright,I think I will just look for some proof if someone can provide it and study it.

the powers of g

they must be divisors of p-1 ,also a^{p-1} \equiv 1

My idea was to show that $d_i$ is some multiple of t which in turn is the period of some element

In my book $t$ is an integer

Hello,thanks for your time

I guess my argument won't work even for $t$ integer?

but if $b =1$ then it works,let me edit ,i think I can make it a little bit clear now.

Yes, I know but I am just confused.Would it work if $t$ is some real number ?(bear with me :S) also $q$ is an integer.

Can't I have $g=a^{t}$ for some real $t$ ?

Yes I've confused it all ,$t=p-1$ and $a$ is some integer which is not congruent to $0 \mod p$