How Does the Euler Totient Function Apply to Multiplicative Proofs?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the Euler Totient Function in proving the formula $$ \phi(mn) = \phi(m) \phi(n) \frac{d}{\phi(d)} $$, where $$ d = (m, n) $$. Participants explain that the divisors of the product of two numbers can be categorized into those of each number and those common to both, which correspond to the greatest common divisor (gcd). A detailed breakdown of the proof involves expressing the numbers in terms of their prime factors and using the properties of the totient function. The conclusion highlights that the relationship between the totient function and the gcd is crucial for deriving the desired formula. Understanding this relationship is essential for grasping the proof's validity.
hawaiifiver
Messages
55
Reaction score
1
Hello,

I am looking at the proof (Theorem 2.5 (b) Apostol) of $$ \phi (mn) = \phi(m) \phi(n) \frac{d}{\phi(d)} $$ where $$ d = (m, n) $$.

Can someone explain how they go from

$$ \prod_{p|mn} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right) = \frac{\prod_{p|m} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right) \prod_{p|n} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right) }{\prod_{p| (m, n)} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)} $$

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hawaiifiver said:
Hello,

I am looking at the proof (Theorem 2.5 (b) Apostol) of $$ \phi (mn) = \phi(m) \phi(n) \frac{d}{\phi(d)} $$ where $$ d = (m, n) $$.

Can someone explain how they go from

$$ \prod_{p|mn} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right) = \frac{\prod_{p|m} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right) \prod_{p|n} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right) }{\prod_{p| (m, n)} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)} $$

Thanks

You can split the divisors of a product of two numbers in divisors of first number, divisors of the second one and divisors of both. These last ones

are, of course, precisely the divisors of the g.c.d. of both numbers. This is is the reason of your formula.
 
DonAntonio said:
You can split the divisors of a product of two numbers in divisors of first number, divisors of the second one and divisors of both. These last ones

are, of course, precisely the divisors of the g.c.d. of both numbers. This is is the reason of your formula.

Hi DonAntonio,

Thanks for the swift reply. Forgive my ignorance, but is there need for a proof of that "method"

Thanks
 
hawaiifiver said:
Hi DonAntonio,

Thanks for the swift reply. Forgive my ignorance, but is there need for a proof of that "method"

Thanks


Well, of course. It is annoying though pretty elementary. Suppose $$m=\prod_{k=1}^r p_k^{a_k}\,\,,\,\,n=\prod_{i=1}^s q_i^{b_i}$$with \,p_k,q_i\, prime numbers, \,a_k,b_i\in \mathbb N . Suppose there is a natural number

$$\,z\leq k,i\,\,\,s.t.\,\,\,p_1=q_1,\ldots ,p_z=q_z\Longrightarrow d=g.c.d(m,n)=\prod_{j=1}^z p_z^{d_j}$$with \,d_j=min\{a_j,b_j\} , or in words: the maximal common divisor of two

numbers is the product of the common primes to both numbera, each prime raised to the minimal power appearing in

either of both numbers

We thus can write now
$$m=d\prod_{k=z+1}^rp_k^{a_k}\,\,,\,\,q=d\prod_{i=z+1}^s q_i^{b_i}\Longrightarrow \varphi(mn)=mn\prod_{j=1}^z\left(1-\frac{1}{p_j}\right)\prod_{k=z+1}^r\left(1-\frac{1}{p_k}\right)\prod_{i=z+1}^s\left(1-\frac{1}{q_i}\right)$$and since
$$\prod_{j=1}^z\left(1-\frac{1}{p_j}\right)=\frac{\varphi(d)}{d}$$the formula you want follows at once.

DonAntonio
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
922
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
840
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K