I came across this Proposition in my book, and I know it's something

  • Level: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lttlbbygurl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
1 reply · 3K views
lttlbbygurl
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I came across this Proposition in my book, and I know it's something really simple that I'm missing, but I can't seem to prove it.

Let n be an odd composite integer.
a) n is a pseudoprime to the base b where gcd (b,n)=1 if and only if the order of b in (Z/nZ)* divides (n-1).
b) If n is a pseudoprime to bases [tex]b_1[/tex] and [tex]b_2[/tex] then n is pseudoprime to base [tex]b_1b_2[/tex] and also to the base [tex]b_1b_2^{-1}[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org


a)
If n is a pseudoprime to the base b, then we have:
[tex]b^{n-1} \equiv 1 \pmod n[/tex]
From this you should be able to derive that the order k of b in Z/nZ divides n-1, because otherwise:
[tex]b^{k} \equiv 1 \pmod n[/tex]
and by the division algorithm we could find an integer r such that 0 < r < k and n-1 = kq + r, but we have:
[tex]b^{n-1}\left(b^k\right)^{-q} \equiv 1 \pmod n[/tex]
which contradicts that the order is the smallest integer with the property.

On the other hand if the order k of b in Z/nZ divides n-1 we can write n-1 = kq and we have:
[tex]b^k \equiv 1 \pmod n[/tex]
from which it follows that:
[tex]b^{n-1} \equiv 1 \pmod n[/tex]

b)
I guess you forgot to state that [itex]\gcd(b_2,n) = 1[/itex] because otherwise [itex]b_2^{-1}[/itex] makes no sense.

This is pretty similar. If n is a pseudoprime to both bases [itex]b_1[/itex] and [itex]b_2[/itex], then,
[tex]b_1^{n-1} \equiv 1 \pmod n[/tex]
[tex]b_2^{n-1} \equiv 1 \pmod n[/tex]
Multiplying these we get the first result, and taking inverses in the second congruence and then multiplying we get the second result.