Counting Primitive Roots in Finite Fields without Group Theory

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of primitive roots in finite fields and how there are phi(|F|-1) primitive roots in a finite field. The speakers also mention various proofs and how they may involve group theory, but it is not necessary for understanding the concept of primitive roots. The conversation ends with a discussion on the use of gcd and lcm in proving the existence of primitive roots in a finite field.
  • #1
devious_
312
3
I have the definition that if F is a finite field then a [itex]\in[/itex] F is a primitive root if ord(a) = |F|-1.

Now what I don't understand is how exactly are there [itex]\phi(|F|-1)[/itex] primitive roots?

(Note: This material is supposed not to use any group theory.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I guess I'll just stick to the group theoretic proof. :smile:
 
  • #3
If g is a primitive root and h is another primitive root then h=g^r for some r, and this is only possible if r is coprime to the order of the mult. group, and each such choice of r gives a distinct primitive root hence there are phi(|F|-1) of them.
 
  • #4
Does the one I cooked up also work?

If g is a primitive root then the group of units U_n is cyclic, of order phi(n), and generated by g. Hence it is also generated by g^k if gcd(k, phi(n))=1. So the number of such primtive roots is phi(phi(n)). (Here I assumed |F|=n. And of course phi(|F|) = |F|-1, since the units of F are all of F\{0}.)

Either way, they both use some group theory, whereas the (freshman) course I'm taking is not supposed to have any group thery in it. I remember that the prof quickly talked about the proof when he stated this result in class, but I can't seem to recall what he did exactly.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
it uses the concept of gcd, which precedes group theory by some thousands of years, or so i guess.

even in the exact form you give it, it uses only modular arithmetic, which as written up by gauss in his disquisitiones, foreshadows group theory.
 
  • #6
Yeah, but we aren't supposed to know what cyclic groups are, or that primitive roots generate the group of units (of a finite field).

Now that I think about it actually, I think the professor didn't even give a real proof, but simply waved his hands and maybe showed that it's intuitively plausible. That would explain why I didn't write down the proof in my notes. I guess the only way to find out is to ask him.

Thanks, btw.
 
  • #7
devious_ said:
Yeah, but we aren't supposed to know what cyclic groups are, or that primitive roots generate the group of units (of a finite field).


The definition of primitive is that it generates: what else is it defined as?
 
  • #8
The original post has the definition I was given.
 
  • #9
And that definition states that it is a generator: its order equals the order of the group. The only bit that is hard is showing that there is at least one generator: if we assume there is at least one then that there are exactly phi(|F|-1) of them is straight forward.
 
  • #10
first, it would be nice to prove there exists at least one primitive root.
so let F be finite field (how can a problem involving fields not use any group theory, when the very definition of a field is that it is a commutative, additive group, whose non zero elements form a commutative multiplicative group?)
anyuway let's try to prove there is a non zero element of order equal to ord(F)-1.
That would do it, since then it reduces to euclid's algorithm for finding the gcd of two integers.
however this is not a trivial fact. let see, a primitive root is a root of the equation X^(q-1) - 1 = 0, where q = ord(F).
now F is a field, so an equation of degree n has at most n roots.
but since F is finite, the powers of a form a sequence with repetitions,
say a^n = a^n+k. then i suppose we get immediately from the cancelation property of fields that a^k = 1. so every element of F-{0} has some finite order,
and the order is obviously less than or equal to q-1. and only n elements can have order n by the remark above about the number of roots of an equation of degree n.
so i guess we need to know that the order of every element divides q-1.
well if not then let ord(a) = k and let p-i = kl + r with r < k.
then we have ?...5 or 10 minutes drunkenly later...
how about these apples? (or grapes)
every element of F-{0} has finite order, so let the distinct orders be a,b,c,...,d.
then I claim:
lemma 1) lcm(a,b,...d) = p-1.
proof: every elements satisfies the equation X^r -1 = 0, where r = this lcm.
hence since an equation of degree r can have only r roots, r is at least as large as q-1.
but if r > q-1, then probably the product of one element of every order would be an element of order r > q-1, a contradiction, since every element has order at most q-1.
now if this is correct, we are done.
i.e. now the product of one elements of each order actually has order equal to q-1, which is hence a primitive root.
now that one primitive root exists, we can easily see from the euclidean algorithm, or whatever, that there are exactly phi(q-1) such.
i.e. the multiplicative set of non zero elements is of the same structure as the additive set Z/(q-1)Z, which has phi(q-1) units, hence F-{0} has phi(q-1) primitive roots.
was denkst du?:-p its a longgg day man. but i could not resist making my point that this elementary problem uses only the thousand year old ides of gcd and lcm (which are equaivalent ideas.)
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Interesting final words. :-p
 
Back
Top