MAS114: Lecture 17 James Cranch http://cranch.staff.shef.ac.uk/mas114/ 2017–2018
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MAS114: Lecture 17
James Cranch
http://cranch.staff.shef.ac.uk/mas114/
2017–2018
An early Christmas present
I’ve put online my number theory tool, to help you revise.http://cranch.staff.shef.ac.uk/ntaas/
It’s linked from the main course webpage.
An early Christmas present
I’ve put online my number theory tool, to help you revise.
http://cranch.staff.shef.ac.uk/ntaas/
It’s linked from the main course webpage.
An early Christmas present
I’ve put online my number theory tool, to help you revise.http://cranch.staff.shef.ac.uk/ntaas/
It’s linked from the main course webpage.
An early Christmas present
I’ve put online my number theory tool, to help you revise.http://cranch.staff.shef.ac.uk/ntaas/
It’s linked from the main course webpage.
A remark
RemarkFermat’s Little Theorem should not be confused with Fermat’s LastTheorem. The latter says there are no solutions in positive integersto an ` bn “ cn with n ě 3, and was much, much harder to prove.
A remark
RemarkFermat’s Little Theorem should not be confused with Fermat’s LastTheorem.
The latter says there are no solutions in positive integersto an ` bn “ cn with n ě 3, and was much, much harder to prove.
A remark
RemarkFermat’s Little Theorem should not be confused with Fermat’s LastTheorem. The latter says there are no solutions in positive integersto an ` bn “ cn with n ě 3
, and was much, much harder to prove.
A remark
RemarkFermat’s Little Theorem should not be confused with Fermat’s LastTheorem. The latter says there are no solutions in positive integersto an ` bn “ cn with n ě 3, and was much, much harder to prove.
More generality
In the proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem, we multiplied onerepresentative of each invertible residue class together. It turns outwe can prove a substantially more general theorem, but it’s a littlemore complicated. First we need a definition:
DefinitionEuler’s function (sometimes known as the totient functionϕ : NÑ N is defined by taking ϕpnq to be the number of integersbetween 1 and n (inclusive) which are coprime to n.
For example, ϕppq “ p ´ 1 if p is prime, since every number from1 to p ´ 1 is coprime to p (and p isn’t coprime to p).For another example, ϕp6q “ 2, since 1 and 5 are the only numbersbetween 1 and 6 which are coprime to 6.
More generality
In the proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem, we multiplied onerepresentative of each invertible residue class together.
It turns outwe can prove a substantially more general theorem, but it’s a littlemore complicated. First we need a definition:
DefinitionEuler’s function (sometimes known as the totient functionϕ : NÑ N is defined by taking ϕpnq to be the number of integersbetween 1 and n (inclusive) which are coprime to n.
For example, ϕppq “ p ´ 1 if p is prime, since every number from1 to p ´ 1 is coprime to p (and p isn’t coprime to p).For another example, ϕp6q “ 2, since 1 and 5 are the only numbersbetween 1 and 6 which are coprime to 6.
More generality
In the proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem, we multiplied onerepresentative of each invertible residue class together. It turns outwe can prove a substantially more general theorem, but it’s a littlemore complicated.
First we need a definition:
DefinitionEuler’s function (sometimes known as the totient functionϕ : NÑ N is defined by taking ϕpnq to be the number of integersbetween 1 and n (inclusive) which are coprime to n.
For example, ϕppq “ p ´ 1 if p is prime, since every number from1 to p ´ 1 is coprime to p (and p isn’t coprime to p).For another example, ϕp6q “ 2, since 1 and 5 are the only numbersbetween 1 and 6 which are coprime to 6.
More generality
In the proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem, we multiplied onerepresentative of each invertible residue class together. It turns outwe can prove a substantially more general theorem, but it’s a littlemore complicated. First we need a definition:
DefinitionEuler’s function (sometimes known as the totient functionϕ : NÑ N is defined by taking ϕpnq to be the number of integersbetween 1 and n (inclusive) which are coprime to n.
For example, ϕppq “ p ´ 1 if p is prime, since every number from1 to p ´ 1 is coprime to p (and p isn’t coprime to p).For another example, ϕp6q “ 2, since 1 and 5 are the only numbersbetween 1 and 6 which are coprime to 6.
More generality
In the proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem, we multiplied onerepresentative of each invertible residue class together. It turns outwe can prove a substantially more general theorem, but it’s a littlemore complicated. First we need a definition:
DefinitionEuler’s function (sometimes known as the totient functionϕ : NÑ N is defined by taking ϕpnq to be the number of integersbetween 1 and n (inclusive) which are coprime to n.
For example, ϕppq “ p ´ 1 if p is prime, since every number from1 to p ´ 1 is coprime to p (and p isn’t coprime to p).For another example, ϕp6q “ 2, since 1 and 5 are the only numbersbetween 1 and 6 which are coprime to 6.
More generality
In the proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem, we multiplied onerepresentative of each invertible residue class together. It turns outwe can prove a substantially more general theorem, but it’s a littlemore complicated. First we need a definition:
DefinitionEuler’s function (sometimes known as the totient functionϕ : NÑ N is defined by taking ϕpnq to be the number of integersbetween 1 and n (inclusive) which are coprime to n.
For example, ϕppq “ p ´ 1 if p is prime
, since every number from1 to p ´ 1 is coprime to p (and p isn’t coprime to p).For another example, ϕp6q “ 2, since 1 and 5 are the only numbersbetween 1 and 6 which are coprime to 6.
More generality
In the proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem, we multiplied onerepresentative of each invertible residue class together. It turns outwe can prove a substantially more general theorem, but it’s a littlemore complicated. First we need a definition:
DefinitionEuler’s function (sometimes known as the totient functionϕ : NÑ N is defined by taking ϕpnq to be the number of integersbetween 1 and n (inclusive) which are coprime to n.
For example, ϕppq “ p ´ 1 if p is prime, since every number from1 to p ´ 1 is coprime to p (and p isn’t coprime to p).
For another example, ϕp6q “ 2, since 1 and 5 are the only numbersbetween 1 and 6 which are coprime to 6.
More generality
In the proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem, we multiplied onerepresentative of each invertible residue class together. It turns outwe can prove a substantially more general theorem, but it’s a littlemore complicated. First we need a definition:
DefinitionEuler’s function (sometimes known as the totient functionϕ : NÑ N is defined by taking ϕpnq to be the number of integersbetween 1 and n (inclusive) which are coprime to n.
For example, ϕppq “ p ´ 1 if p is prime, since every number from1 to p ´ 1 is coprime to p (and p isn’t coprime to p).For another example, ϕp6q “ 2
, since 1 and 5 are the only numbersbetween 1 and 6 which are coprime to 6.
More generality
In the proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem, we multiplied onerepresentative of each invertible residue class together. It turns outwe can prove a substantially more general theorem, but it’s a littlemore complicated. First we need a definition:
DefinitionEuler’s function (sometimes known as the totient functionϕ : NÑ N is defined by taking ϕpnq to be the number of integersbetween 1 and n (inclusive) which are coprime to n.
For example, ϕppq “ p ´ 1 if p is prime, since every number from1 to p ´ 1 is coprime to p (and p isn’t coprime to p).For another example, ϕp6q “ 2, since 1 and 5 are the only numbersbetween 1 and 6 which are coprime to 6.
Fermat-Euler
Using this concept, we can generalise Fermat’s Little Theoremconsiderably:
Theorem (Fermat-Euler Theorem)
Let a and n be integers with gcdpa, nq “ 1. Then
aϕpnq ” 1 pmod nq.
Proof.
?
Fermat-Euler
Using this concept, we can generalise Fermat’s Little Theoremconsiderably:
Theorem (Fermat-Euler Theorem)
Let a and n be integers with gcdpa, nq “ 1. Then
aϕpnq ” 1 pmod nq.
Proof.
?
Fermat-Euler
Using this concept, we can generalise Fermat’s Little Theoremconsiderably:
Theorem (Fermat-Euler Theorem)
Let a and n be integers with gcdpa, nq “ 1. Then
aϕpnq ” 1 pmod nq.
Proof.
?
Fermat-Euler
Using this concept, we can generalise Fermat’s Little Theoremconsiderably:
Theorem (Fermat-Euler Theorem)
Let a and n be integers with gcdpa, nq “ 1. Then
aϕpnq ” 1 pmod nq.
Proof.
?
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it.
It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.
However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq
, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq.
In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.
But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1
(in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq)
, orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1
(in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
Squaring mod p
We worked with the factorial in the proof of Fermat’s LittleTheorem without ever needing to calculate it. It turns out we cancalculate it, using a clever trick.However, we’ll need a fact first:
Proposition
Let p be a prime, and let a be an integer with the property thata2 ” 1 pmod pq. Then either a ” 1 pmod pq or a ” ´1 pmod pq.
Proof.If a2 ” 1 pmod pq, then a2 ´ 1 ” 0 pmod pq, ie pa´ 1qpa` 1q ” 0pmod pq. In other words, p | pa´ 1qpa` 1q.But then, either p | a´ 1 (in which case a ” 1 pmod pq), orp | a` 1 (in which case a ” ´1 pmod pq).
A comment
RemarkThis theorem is not true for some composite moduli! For example,12 ” 32 ” 52 ” 72 ” 1 pmod 8q.I regard this as more evidence that prime moduli behave verynicely indeed!
A comment
RemarkThis theorem is not true for some composite moduli!
For example,12 ” 32 ” 52 ” 72 ” 1 pmod 8q.I regard this as more evidence that prime moduli behave verynicely indeed!
A comment
RemarkThis theorem is not true for some composite moduli! For example,12 ” 32 ” 52 ” 72 ” 1 pmod 8q.
I regard this as more evidence that prime moduli behave verynicely indeed!
A comment
RemarkThis theorem is not true for some composite moduli! For example,12 ” 32 ” 52 ” 72 ” 1 pmod 8q.I regard this as more evidence that prime moduli behave verynicely indeed!
Wilson’s Theorem
Now, this allows us to do this:
Theorem (Wilson’s Theorem)
We have pn ´ 1q! ” ´1 pmod nq if and only if n is prime.
Proof.
?
Wilson’s Theorem
Now, this allows us to do this:
Theorem (Wilson’s Theorem)
We have pn ´ 1q! ” ´1 pmod nq if and only if n is prime.
Proof.
?
Wilson’s Theorem
Now, this allows us to do this:
Theorem (Wilson’s Theorem)
We have pn ´ 1q! ” ´1 pmod nq if and only if n is prime.
Proof.
?
Wilson’s Theorem
Now, this allows us to do this:
Theorem (Wilson’s Theorem)
We have pn ´ 1q! ” ´1 pmod nq if and only if n is prime.
Proof.
?
Examples and remarks
Here’s an example or two:
§ 4 is composite, and p4´ 1q! “ 3! “ 6 ” 2 pmod 4q.
§ 5 is prime, and p5´ 1q! “ 4! “ 24 ” ´1 pmod 5q.
§ 6 is composite, and p6´ 1q! “ 5! “ 120 ” 0 pmod 6q.
§ 7 is prime, and p7´ 1q! “ 6! “ 720 ” ´1 pmod 7q.
RemarkYou could use this as a way of testing if a number is prime.As a matter of fact, it’s not a good way of doing it: if we want tocheck a large number N, it’s quicker to do trial division to see if Nhas any factors, than it is to multiply lots of numbers together.But this result was psychologically important in the developmentof modern fast primality tests: it was the first evidence that thereare ways of investigating whether a number N is prime or not bylooking at how arithmetic modulo N behaves.
Examples and remarks
Here’s an example or two:
§ 4 is composite, and p4´ 1q! “ 3! “ 6 ” 2 pmod 4q.
§ 5 is prime, and p5´ 1q! “ 4! “ 24 ” ´1 pmod 5q.
§ 6 is composite, and p6´ 1q! “ 5! “ 120 ” 0 pmod 6q.
§ 7 is prime, and p7´ 1q! “ 6! “ 720 ” ´1 pmod 7q.
RemarkYou could use this as a way of testing if a number is prime.As a matter of fact, it’s not a good way of doing it: if we want tocheck a large number N, it’s quicker to do trial division to see if Nhas any factors, than it is to multiply lots of numbers together.But this result was psychologically important in the developmentof modern fast primality tests: it was the first evidence that thereare ways of investigating whether a number N is prime or not bylooking at how arithmetic modulo N behaves.
Examples and remarks
Here’s an example or two:
§ 4 is composite, and p4´ 1q! “ 3! “ 6 ” 2 pmod 4q.
§ 5 is prime, and p5´ 1q! “ 4! “ 24 ” ´1 pmod 5q.
§ 6 is composite, and p6´ 1q! “ 5! “ 120 ” 0 pmod 6q.
§ 7 is prime, and p7´ 1q! “ 6! “ 720 ” ´1 pmod 7q.
RemarkYou could use this as a way of testing if a number is prime.As a matter of fact, it’s not a good way of doing it: if we want tocheck a large number N, it’s quicker to do trial division to see if Nhas any factors, than it is to multiply lots of numbers together.But this result was psychologically important in the developmentof modern fast primality tests: it was the first evidence that thereare ways of investigating whether a number N is prime or not bylooking at how arithmetic modulo N behaves.
Examples and remarks
Here’s an example or two:
§ 4 is composite, and p4´ 1q! “ 3! “ 6 ” 2 pmod 4q.
§ 5 is prime, and p5´ 1q! “ 4! “ 24 ” ´1 pmod 5q.
§ 6 is composite, and p6´ 1q! “ 5! “ 120 ” 0 pmod 6q.
§ 7 is prime, and p7´ 1q! “ 6! “ 720 ” ´1 pmod 7q.
RemarkYou could use this as a way of testing if a number is prime.As a matter of fact, it’s not a good way of doing it: if we want tocheck a large number N, it’s quicker to do trial division to see if Nhas any factors, than it is to multiply lots of numbers together.But this result was psychologically important in the developmentof modern fast primality tests: it was the first evidence that thereare ways of investigating whether a number N is prime or not bylooking at how arithmetic modulo N behaves.
Examples and remarks
Here’s an example or two:
§ 4 is composite, and p4´ 1q! “ 3! “ 6 ” 2 pmod 4q.
§ 5 is prime, and p5´ 1q! “ 4! “ 24 ” ´1 pmod 5q.
§ 6 is composite, and p6´ 1q! “ 5! “ 120 ” 0 pmod 6q.
§ 7 is prime, and p7´ 1q! “ 6! “ 720 ” ´1 pmod 7q.
RemarkYou could use this as a way of testing if a number is prime.As a matter of fact, it’s not a good way of doing it: if we want tocheck a large number N, it’s quicker to do trial division to see if Nhas any factors, than it is to multiply lots of numbers together.But this result was psychologically important in the developmentof modern fast primality tests: it was the first evidence that thereare ways of investigating whether a number N is prime or not bylooking at how arithmetic modulo N behaves.
Examples and remarks
Here’s an example or two:
§ 4 is composite, and p4´ 1q! “ 3! “ 6 ” 2 pmod 4q.
§ 5 is prime, and p5´ 1q! “ 4! “ 24 ” ´1 pmod 5q.
§ 6 is composite, and p6´ 1q! “ 5! “ 120 ” 0 pmod 6q.
§ 7 is prime, and p7´ 1q! “ 6! “ 720 ” ´1 pmod 7q.
RemarkYou could use this as a way of testing if a number is prime.As a matter of fact, it’s not a good way of doing it: if we want tocheck a large number N, it’s quicker to do trial division to see if Nhas any factors, than it is to multiply lots of numbers together.But this result was psychologically important in the developmentof modern fast primality tests: it was the first evidence that thereare ways of investigating whether a number N is prime or not bylooking at how arithmetic modulo N behaves.
Examples and remarks
Here’s an example or two:
§ 4 is composite, and p4´ 1q! “ 3! “ 6 ” 2 pmod 4q.
§ 5 is prime, and p5´ 1q! “ 4! “ 24 ” ´1 pmod 5q.
§ 6 is composite, and p6´ 1q! “ 5! “ 120 ” 0 pmod 6q.
§ 7 is prime, and p7´ 1q! “ 6! “ 720 ” ´1 pmod 7q.
RemarkYou could use this as a way of testing if a number is prime.
As a matter of fact, it’s not a good way of doing it: if we want tocheck a large number N, it’s quicker to do trial division to see if Nhas any factors, than it is to multiply lots of numbers together.But this result was psychologically important in the developmentof modern fast primality tests: it was the first evidence that thereare ways of investigating whether a number N is prime or not bylooking at how arithmetic modulo N behaves.
Examples and remarks
Here’s an example or two:
§ 4 is composite, and p4´ 1q! “ 3! “ 6 ” 2 pmod 4q.
§ 5 is prime, and p5´ 1q! “ 4! “ 24 ” ´1 pmod 5q.
§ 6 is composite, and p6´ 1q! “ 5! “ 120 ” 0 pmod 6q.
§ 7 is prime, and p7´ 1q! “ 6! “ 720 ” ´1 pmod 7q.
RemarkYou could use this as a way of testing if a number is prime.As a matter of fact, it’s not a good way of doing it: if we want tocheck a large number N, it’s quicker to do trial division to see if Nhas any factors, than it is to multiply lots of numbers together.
But this result was psychologically important in the developmentof modern fast primality tests: it was the first evidence that thereare ways of investigating whether a number N is prime or not bylooking at how arithmetic modulo N behaves.
Examples and remarks
Here’s an example or two:
§ 4 is composite, and p4´ 1q! “ 3! “ 6 ” 2 pmod 4q.
§ 5 is prime, and p5´ 1q! “ 4! “ 24 ” ´1 pmod 5q.
§ 6 is composite, and p6´ 1q! “ 5! “ 120 ” 0 pmod 6q.
§ 7 is prime, and p7´ 1q! “ 6! “ 720 ” ´1 pmod 7q.
RemarkYou could use this as a way of testing if a number is prime.As a matter of fact, it’s not a good way of doing it: if we want tocheck a large number N, it’s quicker to do trial division to see if Nhas any factors, than it is to multiply lots of numbers together.But this result was psychologically important in the developmentof modern fast primality tests: it was the first evidence that thereare ways of investigating whether a number N is prime or not bylooking at how arithmetic modulo N behaves.
Related Documents
