Proving the Euler Phi Equation Divisible by 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter math_nerd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Euler Phi
math_nerd
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Prove that the Euler phi equation is always divisible by 2. If n > 2.?
I don't understand how this proof works:

I think I need to show that the inverse of a and a are both generated by the same group. Therefore, there are at least 2 elements that generate all other elements in the group. I'm stumped.

Please give a thorough explanation of steps.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


You don't need to generate any groups. Just look at the definition of the phi function. If a is coprime to n, what about n-a?
 


Dick said:
You don't need to generate any groups. Just look at the definition of the phi function. If a is coprime to n, what about n-a?

Yes, this statement works. But I don't understand what it means by gcd(a,n-a)=1 is also coprime...does this show that there are two numbers within the same set of number that are coprime,..?
 


math_nerd said:
Yes, this statement works. But I don't understand what it means by gcd(a,n-a)=1 is also coprime...does this show that there are two numbers within the same set of number that are coprime,..?

n-a doesn't have to be coprime to a. It's coprime to n if a is. The point is that coprimes to n come in pairs.
 


I see. Once I show that coprimes come in pairs, the Euler phi function for n>2:

a = n-a
So 2a = n
a = n/2
Which shows that two numbers are coprime to n. But does this adequately prove that this holds for n>2?
 
Last edited:


If p is a prime > 2, then φ(p) = p-1. Since p > 2, p is odd, and p-1 is even, thus φ(p) is divisible by 2.

Now supposing n is the product of some prime powers p1 through pr with exponents k1 through kr, you should be aware that \varphi(n)=(p_1-1)p_1^{k_1-1} \times (p_2-1)p_2^{k_2-1} \cdots \times(p_r-1)p_r^{k_r-1}. What can you say about the parity of this number?
 
Last edited:
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top