Converse of Wilson's Theorem Proof, Beginner's Number Theory

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the converse of Wilson's Theorem, specifically that for any composite number m greater than 4, (m − 1)! is congruent to 0 modulo m. The proof outlines that if m has distinct prime factors r and s, then m divides (m-1)!, leading to the conclusion that (m-1)! ≡ 0 (mod m). Special consideration is given to the case where m = p^2, where p is a prime, and it is established that (m-1)! is not congruent to -1 (mod m) for composite m, except for m = 4. The discussion emphasizes the necessity of having two nontrivial factors for the proof to hold.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Wilson's Theorem
  • Knowledge of modular arithmetic
  • Familiarity with prime factorization
  • Basic concepts of composite numbers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Wilson's Theorem in number theory
  • Explore advanced topics in modular arithmetic
  • Investigate properties of prime factorization in composite numbers
  • Learn about the significance of factorials in number theory proofs
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students and enthusiasts of number theory, mathematicians interested in modular arithmetic, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of Wilson's Theorem and its applications in proofs involving composite numbers.

cwatki14
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Prove this converse of Wilson’s Theorem: if m > 4 is a composite number then (m − 1)! ≡ 0 (mod m). (Note: This isn’t true for m = 4, so make sure that this fact is reflected in your proof.)
My train of thought...:
If m is composite, which has a prime factors r and s such that r does not equal s, then m divides (m-1)! then (m-1)! is congruent to 0 (mod m).

Now consider the case of m=p^2 where p is a prime.
If m> 2p then px2p divides (m-1)! therefore (m-1)! is congruent to 0 (mod m).
If m<= 2p then 2p>= p^2 by dividing each side by p we show that 2 >=p. The only case that exists when p=2. We can note the 3! is congruent to 2 (mod4).

Thus we have proven that (m-1)! is not congruent to -1 (mod m) is m is composite. In fact, when m is any composite besides 4, (m-1)! is congruent to 0 (mod m)

Also, we can note if m is composite that it has prime factors such that p<m. Hence if n divides (m-1)!+1 then p also divides (m-1)! +1. This is impossible because p divides (m-1)! and it can not divide (m-1)!+1

Does this suffice for the proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In your second to last sentence, what is n? Apart from that, this almost suffices as a proof. The part that concerns me is that r and s being prime factors of m doesn't imply that m divides (m-1)!. Rather, you need two nontrivial factors that multiply to m. If you fix that part, you should be done. The only other thing you might want to clarify a little more in your writeup, even if it seems obvious to you, is that only numbers of the form p^2 do not have two different factors r and s such that rs = p^2.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
975
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K