Proof of Multiplicative Inverses of Coprime Numbers via Euclidean Algorithm

miccol999
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi
I am currently studying Information Theory. Could I please have anyone's ideas on the following question:

Using the Euclidean algorithm, show that coprime numbers always have multiplicative inverses modulo each other.

I tried the following proof, using Fermat's little theorem, let me know what you think.

Let
{a,2a,...,(n-1)a}={1,2,...,(n-1)}(mod n)
Then
(n-1)! a^(n-1)=(n-1)! (mod n)
and
a^(n-1)=1 (mod n)

any improvements/suggestions are very welcome! Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I see these problems:

First, you introduce new variables without explanation: a and n. If they are supposed to be an arbitrary pair of coprime numbers, then you should say something like that.

{a,2a,...,(n-1)a}={1,2,...,(n-1)}(mod n)
How do you know that? The most obvious proof requires you to already know that a is invertible mod n.

Then
(n-1)! a^(n-1)=(n-1)! (mod n)
and
a^(n-1)=1 (mod n)
You cannot divide by (n-1)! unless you already know it's invertible. And you cannot prove it's invertible -- for most n it's actually equivalent to zero mod n

And finally, you've made no remark about why this should have anything to do with the theorem you were trying to prove.


Using the Euclidean algorithm, show that coprime numbers always have multiplicative inverses modulo each other.
But the most serious problem is that you aren't even doing the problem you were asked to do.
 
Last edited:
ok then, that proves that I am completely lost! how would you prove this theorem?
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top