Proof about [itex] \phi (n) [/itex] being a power of 2.

  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The proof establishes that Euler's phi function, denoted as \(\phi(n)\), is a power of 2 if and only if \(n\) can be expressed in the form \(n=(2^x)p_1...p_k\), where \(p_i\) are distinct Fermat primes and \(x\) is a positive integer. The multiplicative nature of \(\phi\) allows for the decomposition \(\phi(n) = \phi(2^x) \phi(p_1)...\phi(p_k)\). It is confirmed that \(\phi(2^x) = 2^{x-1}(2-1)\) is a power of 2, while \(\phi(p_i) = 2^{2^s}\) for Fermat primes also results in powers of 2. The discussion highlights the necessity of Fermat primes in the factorization of \(n\) to ensure \(\phi(n)\) remains a power of 2.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Euler's phi function (\(\phi\)) and its properties
  • Knowledge of Fermat primes and their characteristics
  • Familiarity with multiplicative functions in number theory
  • Basic proof techniques, including proof by contradiction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Fermat primes and their role in number theory
  • Explore the multiplicative nature of Euler's phi function in greater detail
  • Learn about proof techniques in number theory, particularly proof by contradiction
  • Investigate other forms of \(n\) that may yield \(\phi(n)\) as a power of 2
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of number theory, and anyone interested in the properties of Euler's phi function and Fermat primes.

cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Prove: [itex]\phi (n)[/itex] is a power of 2 if and only if
[itex]n=(2^x)p_1...p_k[/itex]
where the [itex]p_i[/itex] are distinct Fermat primes. And it doesn't say but I am pretty sure x
is a positive integer. and [itex]\phi[/itex] is Eulers phi function.

The Attempt at a Solution


we know that phi is a multiplicative function when the gcd(q,w)=1
so [itex]\phi (n)= \phi (2^x) \phi (p_1)...\phi (p_k)[/itex]
and [itex]\phi (2^x) = 2^x-2^{x-1}=2^{x-1}(2-1)[/itex] so that is a power of 2.
And each Fermat prime will be [itex]\phi (p_i)=2^{2^s}+1-1[/itex] so each Fermat prime will be a power of 2 when phi is applied to it. So I guess I have showed that if n is written as it is then
phi (n) will be a power of 2, but I haven't shown the other direction that this is the only n where phi (n) is a power of 2. Maybe I could try a proof by contradiction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You know that you can always write [itex]\phi(n)[/itex] as a product of [itex]\phi(p_i)[/itex] - what if pi is NOT a Fermat prime? Do you still get a power of 2?
 
ok that's a good point. and we know that if [itex]2^t+1[/itex] is prime then t is a power of 2.
and we also couldn't have a power of a fermat prime as a factor of n because
[itex]\phi (p^u)=p^u-p^{u-1}=p^{u-1}(p-1)[/itex] and [itex]p^{u-1}[/itex] is not a power of 2 unless p is 2.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K