Help with proof of theorem related to Fermat's.

In summary, the author is trying to prove a theorem related to Fermat's. They are using a method suggested in a book to prove that e must be a factor of p-1. They are correct in assuming that r must be equal to 0 in order to conclude that e is a factor of p-1.
  • #1
SrEstroncio
62
0
Hello everyone, I have been trying to teach myself number theory and I am stuck trying to prove a (I am sure) very easy to prove theorem related to that of Fermat's.

The theorem I am to prove states:

Let [tex]e[/tex] be the lowest number (natural) such that [tex] a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p) [/tex] for [tex] p [/tex] prime such that [tex] p [/tex] does not divide [tex] a [/tex]. Prove that [tex] p-1 [/tex] is a multiple of [tex] e [/tex].

This theorem came after the proof of Fermat's Theorem, which I will also write for the sake of completeness.

Let [tex] p [/tex] be a prime and let [tex] a [/tex] be an integer such that [tex] p [/tex] does not divide [tex] a [/tex] it follows that:
[tex] a^{p-1} \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p) [/tex]

The book I am reading from (What is mathemathics? by Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins) suggests that I use the fact that [tex] a^{p-1} \equiv a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p) [/tex] and that I divide [tex] p-1 [/tex] by [tex] e [/tex] to get [tex] p-1 = ke + r [/tex]
where r is the residue.

I've given it some thought but I kinda blow at math and I've done no useful advances, I was wondering if anyone could provide some more more insight.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Given that
[tex]a^{p-1} = a^{ke+r} \equiv a^e \equiv 1 \pmod p[/tex]
you are to prove that r=0. Consider that
[tex]a^{ke+r} = a^{ke} a^r = (a^{e})^k a^r[/tex]
(now, doing some more work, where can you get at?)
and remember that r<e.
 
  • #3
Okay, here's what I've thought:

We know that
[tex] a^{p-1} = a^{ke+r} = (a^e)^k a^r \equiv a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p) [/tex]
We also know that
[tex] a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p) [/tex],
we can infer from this that [tex]
(a^e)^n \equiv 1(\bmod p) [/tex] for any integer n, thus the only way for
[tex] (a^e)^k a^r \equiv a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p) [/tex]
to be true is to have
[tex] a^r \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p) [/tex]
which can only happen if [tex] r=0 [/tex] since we were supposing [tex] e [/tex] was the lowest power of [tex] a [/tex] that was congruent to 1 modulo [tex] p [/tex].
So we conclude that
[tex] p-1 = ke + r = ke + 0 = ke [/tex] and thus e must be a factor of [tex] p-1 [/tex].

Tell me if I screwed up somewhere along the way.
 
  • #4
Looks accurate and well presented to me.
 

1. What is Fermat's Last Theorem?

Fermat's Last Theorem is a famous mathematical theorem proposed by French mathematician Pierre de Fermat in the 17th century. It states that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2.

2. What is a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?

A proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is a mathematical demonstration that shows that the theorem is true. The proof was first provided by mathematician Andrew Wiles in 1995, after more than 350 years of attempts by mathematicians to prove it.

3. What makes proving Fermat's Last Theorem challenging?

Proving Fermat's Last Theorem is challenging because it requires advanced mathematical concepts and techniques, including algebraic number theory and elliptic curves. It also involves a high level of mathematical rigor and attention to detail.

4. What is the importance of proving Fermat's Last Theorem?

Proving Fermat's Last Theorem is significant in the field of mathematics because it provides a solution to a problem that has puzzled mathematicians for centuries. It also has implications for other areas of mathematics, such as number theory and algebraic geometry.

5. How can one approach proving Fermat's Last Theorem?

There is no one specific approach to proving Fermat's Last Theorem, as different mathematicians have used various techniques and strategies. However, it often involves breaking down the problem into smaller, more manageable parts and applying different mathematical concepts and methods to each part until a complete proof is constructed.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
774
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
957
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
750
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top