What is the proof of Euler's function?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SrEstroncio
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of Euler's totient function, denoted as \varphi(n), particularly its definitions for prime and composite numbers. Participants seek clarification and guidance on the proof process, exploring various aspects of the function's properties and applications in number theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that \varphi(n) = n-1 when n is prime and provides the formula for composite numbers, expressing a desire for a proof that the book describes as "completely trivial."
  • Another participant inquires about the value of \varphi(p^{\alpha}) when n is a power of a prime, suggesting that this is a useful intermediate result.
  • A different participant mentions confusion regarding the transition from \varphi(p) to \varphi(pq), highlighting the need to consider integers coprime to pq rather than just those not divisible by p.
  • One participant suggests that \varphi is a multiplicative function, proposing that this property could lead to a shorter proof, while also noting that proving the multiplicative nature of \varphi is a prerequisite.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the proof of Euler's function. There is no consensus on a single approach or proof method, and multiple viewpoints on how to tackle the problem are presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference external sources, such as Wikipedia and Wolfram's Mathworld, indicating that the discussion may involve incomplete or unclear assumptions about the properties of the totient function. The distinction between integers not divisible by primes and those coprime to composite numbers is also noted as a potential source of confusion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in number theory, particularly those looking to understand Euler's totient function and its proofs, as well as those seeking clarification on related concepts.

SrEstroncio
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Hello.
I have been reading a book with an introductory section on number theory and the part regarding Euler's function just said that [tex]\varphi (n) = n-1[/tex] when n is prime and that [tex]\varphi (n) = n(1-\frac{1}{p_{1}})(1-\frac{1}{p_{2}})...(1-\frac{1}{p_{n}})[/tex] when n is a composite number.
The book (What is mathematics by Richard Courant) said the proof was "completely trivial" but that they wouldn't say it and I was wondering if someone could provide a proof or guide me through one.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,
does the book say something about the value of phi when n is a power of a prime? That's a useful intermediate result.

In general, you could use a second book. (Or wikipedia.)
"Elementary number theory" by David Burton is a nice introduction.
 
No, it does not say anything about the value of [tex]\varphi (p^{\alpha})[/tex] but wikipedia saves the day. O was reading Wolfram's Mathworld's proof but I got lost around here:
Now let q be some other prime dividing m. The integers divisible by q are q, 2q, ..., (m/q)q. But these duplicate pq, 2pq, ..., (m/(pq))pq. So the number of terms that must be subtracted from [tex]\phi_p[/tex] to obtain [tex]\phi_{pq}[/tex] is

Here's the link.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TotientFunction.html
 
I also get a little confused, because the definition of [itex]\phi_p[/itex] referred to the number of integers not divisible by p; while, when aiming at [itex]\phi_{pq}[/itex], I believe they mean now integers coprime to pq (that is, not divisible by either p, or q, or both). When p was prime it was the same thing, but as pq is composite, the distinction must be made.

For example, if you seek the number of integers (less than some limit) coprime to 6, you can discount the multiples of 2 and then discount the multiples of 3... but take in mind that you just discounted twice the multiples of 6.

However, I would have imagined a shorter way to the proof. [itex]\phi[/itex] is a multiplicative function, meaning that, for each pair of coprimes m, n, [itex]\phi(mn) = \phi(m) \phi(n)[/itex]. Now, any number has a prime factorization (can be expressed as a product of prime powers), and any two of these prime powers are coprime.

(Of course, then you should probably prove first that [itex]\phi[/itex] is multiplicative...)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K