Finding inverses in modular arithmetic

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PsychonautQQ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arithmetic
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the inverse of a number in modular arithmetic, specifically finding the inverse of 108 modulo 625. Two methods are presented: the Bezout theorem and Euler's theorem. Using the Bezout theorem, the inverse is derived as 272 through the Extended Euclidean Algorithm. Alternatively, Euler's theorem provides the inverse as 108 raised to the power of 499 modulo 625, utilizing the Euler totient function.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of modular arithmetic
  • Familiarity with the Extended Euclidean Algorithm
  • Knowledge of Bezout's identity
  • Concept of Euler's totient function
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Extended Euclidean Algorithm in detail
  • Learn about Bezout's identity and its applications
  • Explore Euler's theorem and its implications in modular arithmetic
  • Investigate Carmichael function for calculating modular inverses
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, cryptographers, and anyone interested in modular arithmetic and number theory.

PsychonautQQ
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Hey PF!

Is there a systematic way to calculate the inverse of a number in a modular setting (modular setting? is that what I call it? lol).

How about 108x == 1 (mod 625), wolfram alpha calculated x = 272, how could I have arrived at this number besides guess and check?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There are two nice methods.

The first is by applying the Bezout theorem. This states that if ##a## and ##b## are integers, then there are integers ##p## and ##q## such that ##pa+bq = \text{gcd}(a,b)##. In this case we take ##a=108## and ##b=625##. The gcd is ##1## (which is a necessary and sufficient condition for finding inverses). So we search for integers ##p## and ##q## such that ##108p + 625q=1##. Our ##p## will be the inverse (just look at the equation (mod 625)).

How to find ##p## and ##q##? Well, we have the Euclidean algorithm for finding the gcd. So let's do that:

##625 = 108\cdot 5 + 85##
##108 = 85\cdot 1 + 23##
##85 = 23\cdot 3 + 16##
##23 = 16\cdot 1 + 7##
##16 = 7\cdot 2 + 2##
##7 = 2\cdot 3 + 1##
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_algorithm for the details if this is unfamiliar. So we see indeed that the gcd is ##1##. Now let us do the Euclidean algorithm in reverse:

<br /> \begin{eqnarray*}<br /> 1 &amp; = &amp; 7 - 2\cdot 3\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 7 - (16 - 7\cdot 2)\cdot 3\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 7\cdot (1 + 2\cdot 3) - 16\cdot 3\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 7\cdot 7 - 16\cdot 3\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; (23 - 16\cdot 1)\cdot 7 - 16\cdot 3\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 23\cdot 7 - 16\cdot (1\cdot 7 + 3)\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 23\cdot 7 - 16\cdot 10\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 23\cdot 7 - (85 - 23\cdot 3)\cdot 10\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 23\cdot (7 + 3\cdot 10) - 85\cdot 10\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 23\cdot 37 - 85\cdot 10\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; (108 - 85\cdot 1)\cdot 37 - 85\cdot 10\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 108\cdot 37 - 85\cdot (1\cdot 37 +10)\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 108\cdot 37 - 85\cdot 47\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 108\cdot 37 - (625 - 108\cdot 5)\cdot 47\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 108\cdot (37 + 5\cdot 47) - 625\cdot 47\\<br /> &amp; = &amp; 108\cdot 272 - 625\cdot 47<br /> \end{eqnarray*}

Thus we get
1 = 108\cdot 272 - 625\cdot 47
Looking at this equation in (mod 625), we get ##108\cdot 272 = 1##. So the inverse of 108 is 272.

A second method is by Euler's theorem (the generalization of Fermat's little theorem): This states that if ##\text{gcd}(a,n)=1##, then ##a^{\varphi(n)} = 1## in (mod n). In our case, we get ##108^{\varphi(625)} = 1## in (mod 625). So the inverse is ##108^{\varphi(625)-1}##. Now we need to calculate the Euler totient function ##varphi##. There are several methods, but let us use this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_totient_function#Euler.27s_product_formula
So since ##625 = 5^4##, we get
\varphi(625) = 625\cdot (1 - \frac{1}{5}) = 625 - 125 = 500
So the inverse is ##108^{499}##. This is an easier method to calculate the inverse, but it is more annoying since it leaves us with a tough exponential to calculate. A somewhat similar method but with smaller exponential can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmichael_function
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K