Question: How can you generalize Fermat's theorem to the case where the modulus is composite?
Idea: The key point of the proof of Fermat's
theorem was that if p is prime,
are relatively
prime to p.
This suggests that in the general case, it might be useful to look at the numbers less than the modulus n which are relatively prime to n. This motivates the following definition.
Definition. The Euler
-function is the function on positive integers defined by
Example.
, because
there are eight positive integers less than 24 which are relatively
prime to 24:
On the other hand,
, because all of the numbers in
are relatively prime to 11.
Here is a graph of
for
:
You can see that the function jumps around a little, but the data
points are bounded above by the line
. A point will be nearly on
this line whenever n is prime, and since there are infinitely many
primes, there will always be points near it.
Later, I'll derive a formula for computing
in terms of the
prime factorization of n.
Proposition.
(a) If p is prime,
.
(b) If p is prime and
, then
.
(c)
counts the elements in
which are invertible mod n.
Proof. (a) If p is prime, then all of the
numbers
are relatively prime to p. Hence,
.
(b) There are
elements in
. An element of
this set is not relatively prime to p if and
only if it's divisible by p. The elements of this set which are
divisible by p are
(Note that
is the last element of the set.)
Thus, there are
elements of the set which are divisible by
p, i.e.
elements of the set which are
not relatively prime to p. Hence, there are
elements of the set which are relatively prime to p.
(The definition of
applies to the set
, whereas I just counted the numbers from 1 to
. But this isn't a
problem, because I counted
in the set, but then subtracted it
off since it was not relatively prime to p.)
(c)
if and only if
for some x, so a is
relatively prime to n if and only if a is invertible mod n.
is the number of elements in
which are
relatively prime to n, so
is also the number of elements in
which are invertible mod n.
Definition. A reduced residue system mod n is a set of numbers
such that:
(a) If
, then
. That is, the a's are
distinct mod n.
(b) For each i,
. That is, all the a's are relatively prime
to n.
Thus, a reduced residue system contains exactly one representative for each number relatively prime to n. Compare this to a complete residue system mod n, which contains exactly one representative to every number mod n.
Example.
is a reduced residue
system mod 12. So if
.
On the other hand,
is a
complete residue system mod 12.
Lemma. Let
, and let
be a reduced residue system mod n.
(a) For all m,
is a reduced residue
system mod n.
(b) If
,
is a reduced residue
system mod n.
Proof. (a) This is clear, since
for all i.
(b) Since
, I may find x such that
. Since
, so I may find
such that
. Then
, which proves that
is invertible mod n. Hence,
--- the
's are
relatively prime to n.
Now if
, then
, or
. Since the a's were distinct mod n, this is only
possible of
. Hence, the
's are also distinct mod n.
Therefore,
is a reduced residue system mod
n.
Corollary. Let
, and let
be a reduced residue system mod n. Suppose
, and let t be any integer. Then
is a reduced residue system mod n.
Example.
is a reduced residue system
mod 6. Adding
to each number, I get
, another reduced residue system mod 6.
Since
, I may multiply the original system by 25 to obtain
, another reduced residue system.
Finally,
is yet another reduced
residue system mod 12.
Theorem. (Euler) Let
,
. Then
Remark. If n is prime, then
, and Euler's theorem says
: the
little Fermat theorem.
Proof. Let
, and let
be a reduced residue system mod n. I may assume that
the
's lie in the range
.
Since
,
is another reduced
residue system mod n. Since this is the same set of numbers mod n as
the original system, the two systems must have the same product mod
n:
Now each
is invertible mod n, so multiplying both sides by
, I get
Example.
, and
. Hence,
--- surely not an
obvious fact!
Likewise,
.
You can also use Euler's theorem to compute modular powers. Suppose I
want to find
. Mathematica tells me
that
is
I probably don't want to do this by hand!
Euler's theorem says that
. So
Example. Solve
.
Note that
and
. Therefore,
. Multiply the equation by
:
Now
So the solution is
.
Send comments about this page to: bikenaga@marauder.millersville.edu.
Last updated:
Millersville University Home Page
Copyright 2008 by Bruce Ikenaga