Expansion of Fermat's Little Theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pacdude9
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expansion Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving two related modular arithmetic identities involving Fermat's Little Theorem and Euler's Theorem. The first identity is \( p^{(q-1)} + q^{(p - 1)} \equiv 1 \; (\!\!\!\!\!\! \mod \, pq) \) and the second is \( a^{\phi(b)} + b^{\phi(a)} \equiv 1 \; (\!\!\!\!\!\! \mod \, ab) \), where \( \phi(n) \) is Euler's Totient Function. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two problems related to Fermat's Little Theorem and Euler's Theorem, expressing difficulty in proving them.
  • Another participant suggests showing the first identity modulo \( p \) and \( q \) separately to combine results for modulo \( pq \).
  • A different participant challenges the validity of the identities as stated, providing a counterexample with specific values for \( a \) and \( b \), and questions whether \( a \) and \( b \) should be relatively prime.
  • One participant confirms that \( p \) and \( q \) are distinct primes and \( a \) and \( b \) are coprime, addressing the previous concerns.
  • Another participant notes that Euler's Totient Function generalizes Fermat's Little Theorem and hints at using group properties for proof, referencing concepts from group theory and Lagrange's theorem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the requirements for the identities to hold, particularly regarding the conditions on \( a \), \( b \), \( p \), and \( q \). There is no consensus on the validity of the initial claims, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the relationships between \( a \), \( b \), \( p \), and \( q \), particularly concerning their primality and coprimality. The mathematical steps required to prove the identities are also not fully resolved.

pacdude9
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I've got a pair of (related) problems that are keeping me stumped. The two problems they are asking me to prove are:

[tex]p^{(q-1)} + q^{(p - 1)} \equiv 1 \; (\!\!\!\!\!\! \mod \, pq)[/tex]

[tex]a^{\phi(b)} + b^{\phi(a)} \equiv 1<br /> \; (\!\!\!\!\!\! \mod \, ab)[/tex]

Where [tex]\phi(n)[/tex] is Euler's Totient Function.

I know that these are similar, as the second problem is using Euler's Theorem, a generalization of Fermat's Little Theorem, I just can't seem to figure them out.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you show:
[tex]p^{q-1}+q^{p-1}\equiv 1 \pmod{p}[/tex]
? If so can you do the same mod q and combine these results to get it mod pq?
 
BTW you are probably forgetting some requirements, because as stated your identities are false. Take for instance a=4, b=6, then you get:
[tex]\phi(a)=\phi(b)=2[/tex]
[tex]a^{\phi(a)}+b^{\phi(b)}=4^2+6^2=52 \equiv 4 \pmod {ab=24}[/tex]
Perhaps you meant for a and b to be relatively prime. And in the first you can take p=q=2 and get:
[tex]p^{q-1}+q^{p-1} = 2^1+2^1 = 4 \equiv 0 \pmod {pq=4}[/tex]
Maybe p and q should be distinct?
 
rasmhop said:
Perhaps you meant for a and b to be relatively prime.
Maybe p and q should be distinct?

Thanks! Yes, in the first one, p and q are distinct primes, and in the second, a and b are coprime.
 
Indeed, Euler's Totient Function is a very nice generalization of Fermat's Little Theorem. There is an intuitive proof for both which is studied in "Olympiad Training" but if you're a student, you may try to use group properties. (hint- consider the set {1,2,...,p-1} and the multiplication modulo p. This is clearly a group. Then, What is the order of this group ? What is the order of each element? What does Lagrange's theorem implies ? Try first with Fermat's Little Theorem, and then you may try to expand in Euler's function)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K