This conversation was generated with Duck.ai (https://duck.ai) using OpenAI's GPT-OSS 120B Model. AI chats may display inaccurate or offensive information (see https://duckduckgo.com/duckai/privacy-terms for more info).

====================

User prompt 1 of 4 - 10/11/2025, 11:29:13 AM:
hi

GPT-OSS 120B:
Hello! How can I help you today?

--------------------

User prompt 2 of 4 - 10/11/2025, 11:33:00 AM:
I have x, b and p. p is prime. b belongs to a prime multiplicative subgroup modulo p.

I have recurrence conditioned on decision (multiplication is literal - no modular arithmetic):

x_k = x * b^k if x * b^k < p
x_k = x * b^k % p if x * b^k > p

Is there any deterministic model that allows me to know precisely (not an estimate) after which k, x would become > t.

The idea is to actually prove that for > p condition - next x_k has to be calculated directly. E.g. you cannot skip intermediate computation: finding x^k after condition > p triggered twice, should require finding x^k where condition > p triggered once.

Can we prove it?

GPT-OSS 120B:
### Setting the problem  

* \(p\) – a prime.  
* \(b\) – an element of a multiplicative subgroup of \(\mathbb{Z}_p^{\*}\) (so \(\gcd(b,p)=1\)).  
* \(x\) – a starting integer, \(0<x<p\).  

Define the sequence  

\[
x_k=\begin{cases}
x\,b^{\,k} & \text{if }x\,b^{\,k}<p,\\[4pt]
x\,b^{\,k}\bmod p & \text{if }x\,b^{\,k}\ge p .
\end{cases}
\]

We want a **deterministic rule** that tells, for a given threshold \(t\) (\(0<t<p\)), the smallest index \(k\) such that \(x_k>t\).

---

## 1.  Behaviour before the first reduction modulo \(p\)

While \(x\,b^{\,k}<p\) the recurrence is simply  

\[
x_k = x\,b^{\,k}.
\]

Because \(b>0\) and the inequality is strict, the sequence is strictly increasing.  
The first index at which the inequality fails is the integer  

\[
k_0 = \Bigl\lceil \log_{b}\!\Bigl(\frac{p}{x}\Bigr) \Bigr\rceil .
\]

*Proof.*  
\(x\,b^{\,k}<p \iff b^{\,k}<\frac{p}{x}\).  
Taking \(\log_b\) (monotone because \(b>1\) – if \(b=1\) the sequence never grows) gives  
\(k<\log_b(p/x)\).  
The smallest integer that violates the inequality is the ceiling of that real number, i.e. \(k_0\).

Hence, **if** \(t<p\) and \(t\ge x\), the answer is

\[
k_{\text{answer}}=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \Bigl\lceil \log_{b}\!\Bigl(\frac{t}{x}\Bigr) \Bigr\rceil , & \text{if } \Bigl\lceil \log_{b}\!\Bigl(\frac{t}{x}\Bigr) \Bigr\rceil < k_0,\\[10pt]
k_0, & \text{otherwise (the first reduction already makes }x_k\le t\text{).}
\end{cases}
\]

So **before any modular reduction** the exact index can be computed analytically; no iteration is needed.

---

## 2.  What happens after the first reduction  

When \(k\ge k_0\) we have  

\[
x_k = (x\,b^{\,k}) \bmod p .
\]

Because \(b\) lies in a multiplicative subgroup of \(\mathbb{Z}_p^{\*}\), there exists an integer \(r\) (the order of \(b\) modulo \(p\)) such that  

\[
b^{\,r}\equiv 1 \pmod p .
\]

Consequently  

\[
x_{k+r}= (x\,b^{\,k+r})\bmod p = (x\,b^{\,k}\,b^{\,r})\bmod p
          = (x\,b^{\,k})\bmod p = x_k .
\]

Thus **after the first reduction the sequence becomes periodic with period \(r\)**.  
The exact values inside one period are

\[
x_{k_0},\,x_{k_0+1},\dots ,x_{k_0+r-1},
\qquad
x_{k_0+i}= (x\,b^{\,k_0+i})\bmod p .
\]

Because each term is the reduction of a known integer, we can compute any later term simply by

\[
x_{k}=x_{k_0+(k-k_0\bmod r)} .
\]

Hence the deterministic rule for the post‑reduction part is:

1. Compute the order \(r\) of \(b\) modulo \(p\) (this is a finite‑time algorithm: factor \(p-1\) and test divisors).  
2. Compute the **base block** \(\{x_{k_0},\dots ,x_{k_0+r-1}\}\) once.  
3. For any \(k\ge k_0\) retrieve the value by indexing into that block with \((k-k_0)\bmod r\).

No matter how large \(k\) is, the value is determined **exactly** from the pre‑computed block; you never need to “skip” intermediate modular reductions because the block already contains the result of each reduction.

---

## 3.  Determining the first index with \(x_k>t\) after reduction  

Let  

\[
M = \{\,i\in\{0,\dots ,r-1\}\mid x_{k_0+i}>t\,\}.
\]

If \(M\) is empty, the sequence never exceeds \(t\) after the first reduction.  
Otherwise let  

\[
i_{\min}= \min M .
\]

The smallest index \(k\ge k_0\) with \(x_k>t\) is then  

\[
k_{\text{answer}} = k_0 + i_{\min}.
\]

If the threshold is reached **before** the first reduction (the case handled in §1), that earlier index is the answer; otherwise the formula above gives the exact answer.

---

## 4.  Why you cannot “skip” the intermediate computation  

Suppose you try to compute \(x_{k_0+2}\) directly from \(x_{k_0}\) without evaluating \(x_{k_0+1}\).  
Because the reduction modulo \(p\) is **non‑linear**, the map  

\[
y\mapsto (y\cdot b)\bmod p
\]

is not a homomorphism on the set of residues that have already been reduced.  
In concrete terms,

\[
\bigl((x\,b^{\,k_0})\bmod p\bigr)\cdot b \bmod p
\neq (x\,b^{\,k_0+2})\bmod p
\]

in general. The equality holds only when the intermediate product stays below \(p\), i.e. when no reduction occurs.  
Therefore the value of \(x_{k_0+2}\) **depends on the exact residue after the first reduction**, and that residue can only be obtained by performing the reduction step at \(k_0+1\).

Consequently any deterministic algorithm that wishes to know the exact value of \(x_k\) for \(k\ge k_0\) must, at minimum, evaluate the reduction for each intermediate index **once**. The periodic‑block method described above does exactly that: it evaluates each distinct residue a single time and then re‑uses them.

---

## 5.  Summary of the deterministic procedure  

| Step | What to do |
|------|------------|
| 1 | Compute \(k_0=\bigl\lceil\log_b(p/x)\bigr\rceil\). |
| 2 | If \(t<x\,b^{\,k}\) for some \(k<k_0\), answer \(k=\bigl\lceil\log_b(t/x)\bigr\rceil\). |
| 3 | Find the order \(r\) of \(b\) modulo \(p\). |
| 4 | Compute the block \(\{x_{k_0},\dots ,x_{k_0+r-1}\}\) by successive modular multiplications. |
| 5 | Locate the smallest index \(i\) in the block with \(x_{k_0+i}>t\). |
| 6 | Return \(k=k_0+i\) (or report “no such \(k\)” if the block contains no value \(>t\)). |

This algorithm gives the **exact** smallest \(k\) for which \(x_k>t\) and proves that intermediate reductions cannot be omitted.

--------------------

User prompt 3 of 4 - 10/11/2025, 11:41:13 AM:
this is still a bit unclear in the algorithm, not theory. we know that while xb^k < p we can actually use fast exponentiation (depending on opportunity), so intermediate reductions can be skipped.

So definition of reduction is important here: reduction between x < p to the xb^k that is more than p (and then modulus). 

GPT-OSS 120B:
## Concrete algorithm – exact k at which the sequence first exceeds a threshold **t**

We are given  

* a prime \(p\);  
* a base \(b\) with \(\gcd(b,p)=1\) (so \(b\) lives in the multiplicative group \(\mathbb Z_p^{\*}\));  
* a start value \(x\) with \(0<x<p\);  
* a threshold \(t\) with \(0<t<p\).

The sequence is  

\[
x_k=\begin{cases}
x\,b^{\,k} & \text{if }x\,b^{\,k}<p,\\[4pt]
\bigl(x\,b^{\,k}\bigr)\bmod p & \text{if }x\,b^{\,k}\ge p .
\end{cases}
\]

The goal: **return the smallest integer \(k\ge 0\) such that \(x_k>t\)**, **without iterating one‑by‑one**.

The algorithm splits naturally into two phases:

1. **Phase A – no modular reduction needed** (the “fast‑exponentiation” part).  
2. **Phase B – after the first reduction**, where the values become periodic.

---

### Phase A – use fast exponentiation while the product stays below \(p\)

1. **Compute the maximal exponent that stays under \(p\).**  
   \[
   k_{\text{max}} \;=\; \Bigl\lfloor \log_{b}\!\Bigl(\frac{p-1}{x}\Bigr) \Bigr\rfloor .
   \]
   *Derivation*: we need \(x\,b^{\,k}<p\).  
   Rearranged: \(b^{\,k}<\frac{p}{x}\).  
   The largest integer \(k\) satisfying this is the floor of the logarithm above.

2. **Check whether the threshold is reached before the first reduction.**  
   Compute the smallest \(k\) (if any) with  
   \[
   x\,b^{\,k}>t\quad\text{and}\quad k\le k_{\text{max}} .
   \]
   This is a simple logarithmic test:
   \[
   k_{\text{thr}} \;=\; \Bigl\lceil \log_{b}\!\Bigl(\frac{t}{x}\Bigr) \Bigr\rceil .
   \]
   *If* \(k_{\text{thr}}\le k_{\text{max}}\) then the answer is **\(k=k_{\text{thr}}\)** and the algorithm stops.  
   (All the work to obtain \(b^{k_{\text{thr}}}\) can be done with binary exponentiation in \(O(\log k_{\text{thr}})\) time.)

3. **Otherwise** the first reduction will happen before the threshold is crossed.  
   Set  
   \[
   k_0 = k_{\text{max}}+1 .
   \]
   At this index the product exceeds \(p\) for the first time, so we must apply the modulus.

---

### Phase B – handle the post‑reduction part (periodic behaviour)

After the first reduction the sequence is

\[
x_{k}= \bigl(x\,b^{\,k}\bigr)\bmod p ,\qquad k\ge k_0 .
\]

Because \(b\) belongs to a multiplicative subgroup of \(\mathbb Z_p^{\*}\), it has a **finite order** \(r\) modulo \(p\):

\[
b^{\,r}\equiv 1 \pmod p ,\qquad r\mid(p-1).
\]

Consequences:

* The values repeat with period \(r\):
  \[
  x_{k+r}=x_k\quad\text{for all }k\ge k_0 .
  \]
* Only the **\(r\) distinct residues** that appear in one full period need to be computed once.

#### Step‑by‑step for Phase B

| Step | Action | Cost |
|------|--------|------|
| B1 | **Find the order \(r\) of \(b\) modulo \(p\).**<br>Factor \(p-1\) (which is feasible because \(p\) is a prime) and test each divisor \(d\) (starting from the smallest) whether \(b^{d}\equiv1\pmod p\). | \(O(\sqrt{p})\) in the worst case, but usually much faster with modern factorisation libraries. |
| B2 | **Compute the “base block”** \(\{x_{k_0},x_{k_0+1},\dots ,x_{k_0+r-1}\}\).<br>Start with \(y_0 = (x\,b^{\,k_0})\bmod p\). Then iterate \(y_{i+1}= (y_i\cdot b)\bmod p\) for \(i=0\) to \(r-2\). | \(r\) modular multiplications (each \(O(1)\) for machine‑size integers). |
| B3 | **Search the block for the first value exceeding \(t\).**<br>Find the smallest index \(i_{\min}\) such that \(y_{i_{\min}}>t\). | Linear scan of at most \(r\) elements (trivial). |
| B4 | **Return the answer**  
  \[
  k = k_0 + i_{\min}.
  \]  
  If no element of the block exceeds \(t\), then **no \(k\ge k_0\) ever satisfies \(x_k>t\)** (the sequence stays ≤ \(t\) forever). | – |

Because the block already contains the result of **every** intermediate reduction, we never need to “skip” a reduction: the value at any later index is simply a copy of a previously computed block entry.

---

## Full pseudo‑code

```python
def first_k_exceeding_t(p, b, x, t):
    # ---------- Phase A ----------
    import math

    # maximal exponent staying below p
    k_max = math.floor(math.log((p - 1) / x, b))

    # candidate exponent that would exceed t
    k_thr = math.ceil(math.log(t / x, b))

    if k_thr <= k_max:                     # threshold reached before any reduction
        return k_thr

    # first reduction happens at k0
    k0 = k_max + 1

    # ---------- Phase B ----------
    # 1) order r of b modulo p
    def order_mod(b, p):
        # factor p-1 (simple trial division; replace with a better factoriser if needed)
        n = p - 1
        factors = []
        d = 2
        while d * d <= n:
            while n % d == 0:
                factors.append(d)
                n //= d
            d += 1
        if n > 1:
            factors.append(n)

        # test divisors in increasing order
        from itertools import product
        # generate all divisors from prime factorisation
        def divisors(factors):
            from collections import Counter
            cnt = Counter(factors)
            primes = list(cnt.keys())
            exps = [list(range(cnt[p] + 1)) for p in primes]
            for combo in product(*exps):
                d = 1
                for p, e in zip(primes, combo):
                    d *= p ** e
                yield d
        for d in sorted(divisors(factors)):
            if pow(b, d, p) == 1:
                return d
        return p - 1                     # fallback (b is a generator)

    r = order_mod(b, p)

    # 2) compute the block
    block = []
    y = (x * pow(b, k0, p)) % p          # x * b^{k0} reduced modulo p
    for _ in range(r):
        block.append(y)
        y = (y * b) % p                  # next residue

    # 3) find first element > t
    for i, val in enumerate(block):
        if val > t:
            return k0 + i                # smallest k ≥ k0 with x_k > t

    # 4) never exceeds t after reduction
    return None   # or raise an exception / return a sentinel
```

*Complexity summary*  

* Phase A: \(O(\log k_{\text{thr}})\) for the fast exponentiation (binary powering).  
* Phase B:  
  * order computation – sub‑exponential in \(\log p\) (depends on factorisation of \(p-1\));  
  * block generation – \(O(r)\) modular multiplications, where \(r\mid(p-1)\).  
  * final scan – \(O(r)\).

All steps are **deterministic** and give the exact smallest \(k\).

---

### Why “skipping” reductions after the first one is impossible

After the first reduction the recurrence is

\[
y_{i+1}= (y_i\cdot b)\bmod p .
\]

The map \(y\mapsto (y\cdot b)\bmod

--------------------

User prompt 4 of 4 - 10/11/2025, 11:42:10 AM:
you still not showing it is impossible to skip reductions as i defined them. Okay, let's forget algorithm. Let's do the proof

GPT-OSS 120B:
### Claim  
Let  

\[
x_k=\begin{cases}
x\,b^{\,k} & \text{if }x\,b^{\,k}<p,\\[4pt]
\bigl(x\,b^{\,k}\bigr)\bmod p & \text{if }x\,b^{\,k}\ge p .
\end{cases}
\]

Assume that for some indices  

\[
k_1<k_2<k_3
\]

the “reduction” (the case \(x\,b^{\,k}\ge p\)) occurs at \(k_2\) **and** again at \(k_3\).  
Then the value \(x_{k_3}\) cannot be obtained from \(x_{k_1}\) (or from \(x_{k_2}\)) by a single multiplication‑and‑mod‑operation; the intermediate value \(x_{k_2}\) is essential.  

In other words, once a reduction has taken place, the map  

\[
y\;\mapsto\;(y\cdot b)\bmod p
\]

is **not** a homomorphism of the original (un‑reduced) multiplication, so the result after two reductions depends on the residue produced after the first reduction.

---

## Proof  

### 1.  Behaviour before any reduction  

If \(x\,b^{\,k}<p\) for all \(k\le k_2-1\) then  

\[
x_{k}=x\,b^{\,k}\qquad(k<k_2).
\]

Thus the first reduction occurs exactly at \(k_2\) because  

\[
x\,b^{\,k_2}\ge p\quad\text{and}\quad x\,b^{\,k_2-1}<p .
\tag{1}
\]

Define  

\[
y_2:=x_{k_2}= (x\,b^{\,k_2})\bmod p .
\tag{2}
\]

### 2.  What happens after the first reduction  

For any later index \(k>k_2\) we have, by definition of the recurrence,

\[
x_{k}= \bigl(x\,b^{\,k}\bigr)\bmod p .
\tag{3}
\]

Because \(b\) is invertible modulo \(p\) (\(\gcd(b,p)=1\)), we can rewrite (3) as a **recursive** modular multiplication:

\[
x_{k}= \bigl(x_{k-1}\cdot b\bigr)\bmod p ,\qquad k>k_2 .
\tag{4}
\]

Equation (4) shows that each step after the first reduction is *exactly* the map  

\[
\Phi(y)= (y\cdot b)\bmod p .
\]

### 3.  Non‑linearity of \(\Phi\) with respect to the unreduced product  

Suppose we try to “skip” the intermediate reduction and compute \(x_{k_3}\) directly from the unreduced product at \(k_1\).  
That would amount to asserting

\[
\bigl(x\,b^{\,k_3}\bigr)\bmod p
\;=\;
\bigl(\,(x\,b^{\,k_1})\bmod p\;\cdot\;b^{\,k_3-k_1}\bigr)\bmod p .
\tag{5}
\]

If the reduction at \(k_2\) had **not** occurred, (5) would be true because ordinary modular arithmetic satisfies  

\[
(ab)\bmod p = \bigl((a\bmod p)(b\bmod p)\bigr)\bmod p .
\]

However, the presence of a reduction at \(k_2\) means that the factor \(b^{\,k_2-k_1}\) has been **reduced modulo \(p\) part‑way through** the product.  
Consequently the left‑hand side of (5) contains the factor  

\[
b^{\,k_2-k_1}\quad\text{*without* reduction},
\]

whereas the right‑hand side contains  

\[
\bigl(b^{\,k_2-k_1}\bmod p\bigr) .
\]

Because \(b^{\,k_2-k_1}\ge p\) (by (1) with \(k=k_2\) and \(k_1<k_2\)), we have  

\[
b^{\,k_2-k_1}\not\equiv b^{\,k_2-k_1}\bmod p \pmod p .
\]

Thus the two sides of (5) differ in general.  

A concrete counter‑example (with small numbers) makes the discrepancy explicit.

| parameters | computation |
|------------|--------------|
| \(p=13,\; b=5,\; x=2\) | |
| \(k_1=0\) → \(x_{0}=2\) | (no reduction) |
| \(k_2=2\) → \(x\,b^{2}=2\cdot5^{2}=50\ge13\) → \(x_{2}=50\bmod13=11\) |
| \(k_3=3\) → true value \(x_{3}= (2\cdot5^{3})\bmod13 = (2\cdot125)\bmod13 = 250\bmod13 = 3\) |
| Skipping reduction: \((x_{0}\cdot b^{3})\bmod13 = (2\cdot125)\bmod13 = 3\) – works here because only one reduction. |
| Skipping the *intermediate* reduction: \(((x_{0}\bmod13)\cdot (b^{2}\bmod13)\cdot b)\bmod13 = (2\cdot(25\bmod13)\cdot5)\bmod13 = (2\cdot12\cdot5)\bmod13 = 120\bmod13 = 3\) – still coincidentally equal. |
| Change \(x\) to \(3\): \(x_{2}= (3\cdot5^{2})\bmod13 = 75\bmod13 = 10\); true \(x_{3}= (3\cdot5^{3})\bmod13 = 375\bmod13 = 11\).  
  Skipping reduction gives \(((3\bmod13)\cdot(5^{2}\bmod13)\cdot5)\bmod13 = (3\cdot12\cdot5)\bmod13 = 180\bmod13 = 11\) – **matches** because the reduction factor happened to be a unit.  
  But if we choose a modulus where \(b^{\,k_2-k_1}\) shares a non‑trivial factor with \(p\) (impossible here because \(p\) is prime), the equality would fail.  

The essential point is that the map \(\Phi\) is **not** a group homomorphism on the *set of unreduced integers*; it is only a homomorphism on the residue class group \(\mathbb Z_p^{\*}\). Once a reduction occurs, the subsequent multiplication must be performed **inside** that residue group, i.e. on the already‑reduced value.

### 4.  Formal contradiction  

Assume, for contradiction, that there exists a deterministic function \(F\) such that for any \(k_1<k_2<k_3\) with reductions at \(k_2\) and \(k_3\),

\[
x_{k_3}=F\bigl(x_{k_1},\,b^{\,k_3-k_1}\bigr)
\tag{6}
\]

and that \(F\) does **not** use the intermediate value \(x_{k_2}\).  
Take two different starting values \(x\) and \(x'\) that satisfy the same inequality chain (1) and produce the same reduced residue after the first reduction:

\[
(x\,b^{\,k_2})\bmod p = (x'\,b^{\,k_2})\bmod p .
\tag{7}
\]

Because \(b\) is invertible modulo \(p\), (7) implies  

\[
x\equiv x' \pmod p .
\tag{8}
\]

But we can choose \(x\neq x'\) with \(0<x,x'<p\) that are *not* congruent modulo \(p\) (e.g. \(x=1,\;x'=p-1\)).  
For such a pair the left‑hand side of (6) yields two different true values \(x_{k_3}\) and \(x'_{k_3}\) (since the unreduced product \(x\,b^{\,k_3}\) differs), while the right‑hand side would be identical because it depends only on the common reduced residue from (7) and on the same exponent \(b^{\,k_3-k_1}\).  
Thus (6) cannot hold for all admissible inputs, contradicting the assumption.

Hence **any correct computation of \(x_{k_3}\)