Help with proof of theorem related to Fermat's.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SrEstroncio
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a theorem related to Fermat's Theorem in number theory. The theorem states that for a prime \( p \) and an integer \( a \) such that \( p \) does not divide \( a \), the smallest exponent \( e \) for which \( a^e \equiv 1 \mod p \) implies that \( p-1 \) is a multiple of \( e \.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 introduces the theorem and the context of Fermat's Theorem, outlining the goal of proving that \( p-1 \) is a multiple of \( e \).
  • Post 2 suggests proving that the residue \( r \) in the equation \( p-1 = ke + r \) must be zero, leading to further exploration of the implications of \( a^{ke+r} \equiv 1 \mod p \).
  • Post 3 elaborates on the reasoning that if \( a^e \equiv 1 \mod p \), then \( (a^e)^k a^r \equiv 1 \mod p \) implies \( a^r \equiv 1 \mod p \), concluding that \( r \) must be zero since \( e \) is the lowest exponent satisfying the congruence.
  • Post 4 expresses agreement with the reasoning presented in Post 3, indicating that the argument appears accurate and well-structured.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the reasoning presented in the discussion, particularly in the conclusion that \( r \) must be zero. However, the discussion does not explicitly resolve whether there are any overlooked assumptions or alternative interpretations of the theorem.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not address potential limitations or assumptions that may affect the proof, such as the dependence on the definitions of \( e \) and the nature of congruences.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals studying number theory, particularly those interested in proofs related to Fermat's Theorem and modular arithmetic.

SrEstroncio
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone, I have been trying to teach myself number theory and I am stuck trying to prove a (I am sure) very easy to prove theorem related to that of Fermat's.

The theorem I am to prove states:

Let [tex]e[/tex] be the lowest number (natural) such that [tex]a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p)[/tex] for [tex]p[/tex] prime such that [tex]p[/tex] does not divide [tex]a[/tex]. Prove that [tex]p-1[/tex] is a multiple of [tex]e[/tex].

This theorem came after the proof of Fermat's Theorem, which I will also write for the sake of completeness.

Let [tex]p[/tex] be a prime and let [tex]a[/tex] be an integer such that [tex]p[/tex] does not divide [tex]a[/tex] it follows that:
[tex]a^{p-1} \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p)[/tex]

The book I am reading from (What is mathemathics? by Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins) suggests that I use the fact that [tex]a^{p-1} \equiv a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p)[/tex] and that I divide [tex]p-1[/tex] by [tex]e[/tex] to get [tex]p-1 = ke + r[/tex]
where r is the residue.

I've given it some thought but I kinda blow at math and I've done no useful advances, I was wondering if anyone could provide some more more insight.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Given that
[tex]a^{p-1} = a^{ke+r} \equiv a^e \equiv 1 \pmod p[/tex]
you are to prove that r=0. Consider that
[tex]a^{ke+r} = a^{ke} a^r = (a^{e})^k a^r[/tex]
(now, doing some more work, where can you get at?)
and remember that r<e.
 
Okay, here's what I've thought:

We know that
[tex]a^{p-1} = a^{ke+r} = (a^e)^k a^r \equiv a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p)[/tex]
We also know that
[tex]a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p)[/tex],
we can infer from this that [tex] (a^e)^n \equiv 1(\bmod p)[/tex] for any integer n, thus the only way for
[tex](a^e)^k a^r \equiv a^e \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p)[/tex]
to be true is to have
[tex]a^r \equiv 1 (\bmod \ p)[/tex]
which can only happen if [tex]r=0[/tex] since we were supposing [tex]e[/tex] was the lowest power of [tex]a[/tex] that was congruent to 1 modulo [tex]p[/tex].
So we conclude that
[tex]p-1 = ke + r = ke + 0 = ke[/tex] and thus e must be a factor of [tex]p-1[/tex].

Tell me if I screwed up somewhere along the way.
 
Looks accurate and well presented to me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K