- #1
kingwinner
- 1,270
- 0
Lagrange's Theorem: let p be any prime and [tex]f(x) = a_nx^n +a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + ... + a_1x + a_0[/tex] with [tex]a_n[/tex] ≡/≡ 0 (mod p). Then f(x) ≡ 0 (mod p) has at most n solutions.
Use the above theorem to prove Wilson's theorem.
Hint: Let [tex]f(x) = (x-1)(x-2)...(x-(p-1)) - (x^{p-1} - 1)[/tex] for an odd prime p.
Proof:
Expanding,
[tex]f(x) = (x-1)(x-2)...(x-(p-1)) - (x^{p-1} - 1)[/tex]
= [tex]a_{p-2}x^{p-2} +...+ a_1x + a_0[/tex] where the [tex]a_i[/tex] are some coefficients
By the above theorem, f has at most p-2 roots mod p IF [tex]a_{p-2}[/tex] ≡/≡ 0 (mod p). (*)
But by Fermat's theorem, for a=1,2,...,p-1, [tex]a^{p-1} -1[/tex] ≡ 0 (mod p).
So for a=1,2,...,p-1, f(a) ≡ 0 (mod p).
So f has at least p-1 roots mod p. (**)
(*) and (**) contradict unless f(x) ≡ 0 (mod p). Therefore, we must have f(x) ≡ 0 (mod p).
=> f(0)=(-1)(-2)...(-(p-1)) - (-1) ≡ 0 (mod p)
=> [tex](-1)^{p-1} (p-1)! + 1[/tex] ≡ 0 (mod p)
For odd primes p, p-1 is even, so (p-1)! ≡ -1 (mod p)
(For p=2, check directly.)
=========================================
I don't understand the two lines in red.
I understand that there is a contradiction, but why does this imply that f(x) ≡ 0 (mod p)? Why in this case, there will be no contradiction? I'm totally lost here...
Also, f(x) ≡ 0 (mod p) doesn't necessarily mean it holds for EVERY integer x, so why can we substitute x=0 and say that f(0) ≡ 0 (mod p)? What is the justification for this step?
I hope someone can explain this proof.
Thank you very much!
[also under discussion in math help forum]
Use the above theorem to prove Wilson's theorem.
Hint: Let [tex]f(x) = (x-1)(x-2)...(x-(p-1)) - (x^{p-1} - 1)[/tex] for an odd prime p.
Proof:
Expanding,
[tex]f(x) = (x-1)(x-2)...(x-(p-1)) - (x^{p-1} - 1)[/tex]
= [tex]a_{p-2}x^{p-2} +...+ a_1x + a_0[/tex] where the [tex]a_i[/tex] are some coefficients
By the above theorem, f has at most p-2 roots mod p IF [tex]a_{p-2}[/tex] ≡/≡ 0 (mod p). (*)
But by Fermat's theorem, for a=1,2,...,p-1, [tex]a^{p-1} -1[/tex] ≡ 0 (mod p).
So for a=1,2,...,p-1, f(a) ≡ 0 (mod p).
So f has at least p-1 roots mod p. (**)
(*) and (**) contradict unless f(x) ≡ 0 (mod p). Therefore, we must have f(x) ≡ 0 (mod p).
=> f(0)=(-1)(-2)...(-(p-1)) - (-1) ≡ 0 (mod p)
=> [tex](-1)^{p-1} (p-1)! + 1[/tex] ≡ 0 (mod p)
For odd primes p, p-1 is even, so (p-1)! ≡ -1 (mod p)
(For p=2, check directly.)
=========================================
I don't understand the two lines in red.
I understand that there is a contradiction, but why does this imply that f(x) ≡ 0 (mod p)? Why in this case, there will be no contradiction? I'm totally lost here...
Also, f(x) ≡ 0 (mod p) doesn't necessarily mean it holds for EVERY integer x, so why can we substitute x=0 and say that f(0) ≡ 0 (mod p)? What is the justification for this step?
I hope someone can explain this proof.
Thank you very much!
[also under discussion in math help forum]