Euler's theorem generalizes Fermat's theorem to the case where the modulus is composite.
The key point of the proof of Fermat's theorem was that if p is
prime, are relatively prime to p.
This suggests that in the general case, it might be useful to look at the numbers less than the modulus n which are relatively prime to n. This motivates the following definition.
Definition. The Euler -function is the function on positive integers
defined by
For example, , because there are eight positive
integers less than 24 which are relatively prime to 24:
On the other hand, , because all of the numbers
in
are relatively prime to 11.
Here is a graph of for
:
You can see that the function jumps around a little, but the data
points are bounded above by the line . A point will be
nearly on this line whenever n is prime, and since there are
infinitely many primes, there will always be points near it.
Later, I'll derive a formula for computing in terms of the prime factorization of n.
Proposition.
(a) If p is prime, .
(b) If p is prime and , then
.
(c) counts the elements in
which are invertible mod n.
Proof. (a) If p is prime, then all of the
numbers are relatively prime to p. Hence,
.
(b) There are elements in
. An
element of this set is not relatively prime to
p if and only if it's divisible by p. The elements of this set which
are divisible by p are
(Note that is the last element of the
set.) Thus, there are
elements of the set which are
divisible by p, i.e.
elements of the set which are not relatively prime to p. Hence, there are
elements of the set which are relatively prime to p.
(The definition of applies to the set
, whereas I just counted the
numbers from 1 to
. But this isn't a problem,
because I counted
in the set, but then subtracted it
off since it was not relatively prime to p.)
(c) if and only if
for some x, so a is relatively prime to n
if and only if a is invertible mod n. Now
is the number of elements in
which are relatively prime to n, so
is also the number of elements in
which are invertible mod n.
Definition. A reduced residue system mod n is a set of numbers
such that:
(a) If , then
.
That is, the a's are distinct mod n.
(b) For each i, . That is, all the a's are
relatively prime to n.
Thus, a reduced residue system contains exactly one representative for each number relatively prime to n. Compare this to a complete residue system mod n, which contains exactly one representative to every number mod n.
As an example, is a reduced residue system
mod 12. So is
.
On the other hand,
is a complete residue system mod 12.
Lemma. Let , and let
be a reduced residue system mod n.
(a) For all m, is a
reduced residue system mod n.
(b) If ,
is a
reduced residue system mod n.
Proof. (a) This is clear, since for all i.
(b) Since , I may find x such that
. Since
, so I may
find
such that
. Then
, which proves that
is invertible mod n. Hence,
--- the
's are relatively prime to n.
Now if , then
, or
. Since the a's were distinct mod n, this
is only possible of
. Hence, the
's are also distinct mod n.
Therefore, is a reduced residue
system mod n.
Corollary. Let , and let
be a reduced residue system mod n. Suppose
, and let t be any integer. Then the following is a
reduced residue system mod n:
Here are some examples of these results. is a reduced residue system mod 6. Adding
to each number, I get
, another
reduced residue system mod 6.
Since , I may multiply the original system by 25
to obtain
, another reduced residue system.
Finally, is yet another
reduced residue system mod 12.
Theorem. (Euler) Let ,
. Then
Remark. If n is prime, then , and Euler's theorem says
, which is Fermat's theorem.
Proof. Let , and let
be a reduced residue system mod n. I may
assume that the
's lie in the range
.
Since ,
is another
reduced residue system mod n. Since this is the same set of numbers
mod n as the original system, the two systems must have the same
product mod n:
Now each is invertible mod n, so multiplying both
sides by
, I get
As an example, , and
. Hence, Euler's theorem says that
.
Similarly, .
Example. Reduce to a number in the range
.
Euler's theorem says that . So
Example. Solve .
Note that and
. Therefore,
.
Multiply the equation by
:
Now
So the solution is .
Copyright 2019 by Bruce Ikenaga