Proofs of Fermat's little theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article collects together a variety of proofs of Fermat's little theorem, which states that

for every prime number p and every integer a (see modular arithmetic).

Contents 1 Simplifications 2 Proof using the Euler-Fermat theorem 3 Proof by counting bracelets 3.1 Bracelets 3.2 Completing the proof 4 Proof using modular arithmetic 4.1 An example 4.2 The cancellation law 4.3 The rearrangement property 5 Proof using group theory 5.1 The invertibility property 6 Proof using the binomial theorem 7 Proof using dynamical systems

[edit] Simplifications

Some of the proofs of Fermat's little theorem given below depend on two simplifications.

The first is that we may assume that a is in the range 0 ≤ a ≤ p − 1. This is a simple consequence of the laws of modular arithmetic; we are simply saying that we may first reduce a modulo p.

Secondly, it suffices to prove that

for a in the range 1 ≤ a ≤ p − 1. Indeed, if (X) holds for such a, then we can simply multiply both sides by a to obtain the original form of the theorem,

and if a happens to be zero, the original equation in its original form is obviously true anyway.

[edit] Proof using the Euler-Fermat theorem

if p|a (p divides a), then , if not, then (Euler-Fermat theorem). This equation multiplied by a gives us the expected form.

[edit] Proof by counting bracelets

This is perhaps the simplest known proof, requiring the least mathematical background. It is an attractive example of a combinatorial proof (a proof that involves counting a collection of objects in two different ways).

The proof given here is an adaptation of Dijkstra's manuscript "A short proof of one of Fermat's theorems" (EWD740).

To keep things simple, let us assume that a is a positive integer. Consider all the possible strings of p symbols, using an alphabet with a different symbols. The total number of such strings is a ^p, since there are a possibilities for each of p positions (see rule of product).

For example, if p = 5 and a = 2, then we can use an alphabet with two symbols (say A and B), and there are 2⁵ = 32 strings of length five:

AAAAA, AAAAB, AAABA, AAABB, AABAA, AABAB, AABBA, AABBB,

ABAAA, ABAAB, ABABA, ABABB, ABBAA, ABBAB, ABBBA, ABBBB,

BAAAA, BAAAB, BAABA, BAABB, BABAA, BABAB, BABBA, BABBB,

BBAAA, BBAAB, BBABA, BBABB, BBBAA, BBBAB, BBBBA, BBBBB.

We will argue below that if we remove the strings consisting of a single symbol from the list (in our example, AAAAA and BBBBB), the remaining a ^p − a strings can be arranged into groups, each group containing exactly p strings. It follows that a ^p − a is divisible by p.

[edit] Bracelets

Let us think of each such string as representing a bracelet. That is, we connect the two ends of the string together, and regard two strings as the same bracelet if we can rotate one string to obtain the second string; in this case we will say that the two strings are friends. In our example, the following strings are all friends:

AAAAB, AAABA, AABAA, ABAAA, BAAAA.

Similarly, each line of the following list corresponds to a single bracelet.

AAABB, AABBA, ABBAA, BBAAA, BAAAB,

AABAB, ABABA, BABAA, ABAAB, BAABA,

AABBB, ABBBA, BBBAA, BBAAB, BAABB,

ABABB, BABBA, ABBAB, BBABA, BABAB,

ABBBB, BBBBA, BBBAB, BBABB, BABBB,

AAAAA,

BBBBB.

Notice that in the above list, some bracelets are represented by five different strings, and some only by a single string, so the list shows very clearly why 32 − 2 is divisible by 5.

One can use the following rule to work out how many friends a given string S has:

If S is built up of several copies of the string T, and T cannot itself be broken down further into repeating strings, then the number of friends of S (including S itself) is equal to the length of T.

For example, suppose we start with the string S = "ABBABBABBABB", which is built up of several copies of the shorter string T = "ABB". If we rotate it one symbol at time, we obtain the following three strings:

ABBABBABBABB,

BBABBABBABBA,

BABBABBABBAB.

There aren't any others, because ABB is exactly three symbols long, and cannot be broken down into further repeating strings.

[edit] Completing the proof

Using the above rule, we can complete the proof of Fermat's little theorem quite easily, as follows. Our starting pool of a ^p strings may be split into two categories:

• Some strings contain p identical symbols. There are exactly a of these, one for each symbol in the alphabet. (In our running example, these are the strings AAAAA and BBBBB.)
• The rest of the strings use at least two distinct symbols from the alphabet. If we try to break up such a string S into repeating copies of a string T, we find that because p is prime, the only possibility is that T is already the whole string S. Therefore, the above rule tells us that S has exactly p friends (including S itself).

The second category contains a ^p − a strings, and they may be arranged into groups of p strings, one group for each bracelet. Therefore a ^p − a must be divisible by p, as promised.

[edit] Proof using modular arithmetic

This proof requires some background in modular arithmetic.

Let us assume that a is positive and not divisible by p. The idea is that if we write down the sequence of numbers

and reduce each one modulo p, the resulting sequence turns out to be a rearrangement of

Therefore, if we multiply together the numbers in each sequence, the results must be identical modulo p:

Collecting together the a terms yields

Finally, we may "cancel out" the numbers 1, 2, ..., p − 1 from both sides of this equation, obtaining

There are two steps in the above proof that we need to justify:

• Why (A) is a rearrangement of (B), and
• Why it is valid to "cancel" in the setting of modular arithmetic.

We will prove these things below; let us first see an example of this proof in action.

[edit] An example

If a = 3 and p = 7, then the sequence in question is

reducing modulo 7 gives

which is just a rearrangement of

Multiplying them together gives

that is,

Cancelling out by 1, 2, ... up to 6 yields

which is Fermat's little theorem for the case a = 3 and p = 7.

[edit] The cancellation law

Let us first explain why it is valid, in certain situations, to "cancel". The exact statement is as follows. If u, x and y are integers, and u is not divisible by p, and if

then we may "cancel" u to obtain

Our use of this cancellation law in the above proof of Fermat's little theorem was valid, because the numbers 1, 2, ..., p − 1 are certainly not divisible by p (indeed they are smaller than p).

We can prove the cancellation law easily using Euclid's lemma, which states that if a prime p divides a product rs (where r and s are integers), then either p divides r or p divides s. Indeed, the equation

simply means that p divides ux − uy = u(x − y). Since we are assuming that p does not divide u, Euclid's lemma tells us that it must divide x − y instead; that is,

(Note that the conditions under which the cancellation law holds are quite strict, and this explains why Fermat's little theorem demands that p be a prime. For example, 2 × 2 ≡ 2 × 5 (mod 6), but we cannot conclude that 2 ≡ 5 (mod 6), since 6 is not prime.)

[edit] The rearrangement property

Finally, we must explain why the sequence

when reduced modulo p, becomes a rearrangement of the sequence

To start with, none of the terms a, 2a, ..., (p − 1)a can be equal to zero modulo p, since if k is one of the numbers 1, 2, ..., p − 1, then k is not divisible by p, and neither is a, so Euclid's lemma tells us that ka cannot be divisible by p. Therefore, at least we know that the numbers a, 2a, ..., (p − 1)a, when reduced modulo p, must be found among the numbers 1, 2, 3, ..., p − 1.

Furthermore, the numbers a, 2a, ..., (p − 1)a must all be distinct after reducing them modulo p, because if

where k and m are one of 1, 2, ..., p − 1, then the cancellation law tells us that

To summarise: when we reduce the p − 1 numbers a, 2a, ..., (p − 1)a modulo p, we obtain distinct members of the sequence 1, 2, ..., p − 1. Since there are exactly p − 1 of these, the only possibility is that the former are a rearrangement of the latter.

[edit] Proof using group theory

This proof requires the most basic elements of group theory.

The idea is to recognise that the set G = {1, 2, ..., p − 1}, with the operation of multiplication (taken modulo p), forms a group. The only group axiom that requires some effort to verify is that each element of G is invertible. Taking this on trust for the moment, let us assume that a is in the range 1 ≤ a ≤ p − 1, that is, a is an element of G. Let k be the order of a, so that

By Lagrange's theorem, k divides the order of G, which is p − 1, so p − 1 = km for some positive integer m. Then

[edit] The invertibility property

To prove that every element b of G is invertible, we may proceed as follows. First, b is relatively prime to p. (since p itself is prime) Then Bézout's identity assures us that there are integers x and y such that

Reading this equation modulo p, we see that x is an inverse for b, since

Therefore every element of G is invertible, so as remarked earlier, G is a group.

For example, when p = 11, the inverses of each element are given as follows:

a	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
a −1	1	6	4	3	9	2	8	7	5	10

[edit] Proof using the binomial theorem

This proof uses induction to prove the theorem for all integers a ≥ 0.

The base step, that 0 ^p ≡ 0 (mod p), is true for modular arithmetic because it is true for integers. Next, we must show that if the theorem is true for a = k, then it is also true for a = k+1. For this inductive step, we need the following lemma.

Lemma. For any prime p,

An alternative way of viewing this lemma is that it states that

for any x and y in the finite field GF(p).

Postponing the proof of the lemma for now, we proceed with the induction.

Proof. Assume k^p ≡ k (mod p), and consider (k+1)^p. By the lemma we have

Using the induction hypothesis, we have that k^p ≡ k (mod p); and, trivially, 1^p = 1. Thus

which is the statement of the theorem for a = k+1. ∎

For the proof of the lemma we use the binomial theorem, which states that for any positive integer n,

where the coefficients are the binomial coefficients,

described in terms of the factorial function, n ! = 1×2×3×⋯×n.

Proof of lemma. The binomial coefficients are all integers, and for 0 < i < p, neither of the terms in the denominator includes a factor of p. Therefore, the coefficient itself must retain a prime factor of p from the numerator, implying that

Modulo p, this eliminates all but the first and last terms of the sum on the left-hand side of the binomial theorem for prime p. ∎

The primality of p is essential to the lemma; otherwise, we have examples like

which is not divisible by 4.

[edit] Proof using dynamical systems

This proof uses some basic concepts from dynamical systems.

We start by considering a family of functions, T_n, where n ≥ 2 is an integer, mapping the interval [0, 1] to itself by the formula

where {y} denotes the fractional part of y. For example, the function T₃ is illustrated below:

A number x₀ is said to be a fixed point of a function f if f(x₀) = x₀; in other words, if f leaves x₀ fixed. The fixed points of a function can be easily found graphically: they are simply the x-coordinates of the points where the graph of f(x) intersects the graph of the line y = x. For example, the fixed points of the function T₃(x) are 0, 1/2, and 1; they are marked by black circles on the following diagram.

We will require the following two lemmas.

Lemma 1. For any n ≥ 2, the function T_n(x) has exactly n + 1 fixed points.

Proof. Clearly, x = 1 is a fixed point. Suppose now that . Then x = f(x) = {nx} if and only if ; i.e., if and only if for some . There are n such numbers (corresponding to ) in the interval [0,1).

Lemma 2. For any positive integers n and m, and any 0 ≤ x ≤ 1,

In other words, T_mn(x) is the composition of T_n(x) and T_m(x).

Proof. The proof of this lemma is not difficult, but we need to be slightly careful with the endpoint x = 1. For this point the lemma is clearly true since

So let us assume that 0 ≤ x < 1. In this case,

so T_m(T_n(x)) is given by

Therefore, what we really need to show is that

To do this we observe that {nx} = nx − k, where k is the integer part of nx; then

since mk is an integer.

Now let us properly begin the proof of Fermat's little theorem, by studying the function T_{a ^p}(x). We will assume that a is positive. From Lemma 1, we know that it has a^p + 1 fixed points. By Lemma 2 we know that

so any fixed point of T_a is automatically a fixed point of T_{a ^p}.

We are interested in the fixed points of T_{a ^p}(x) that are not fixed points of T_a(x). Let us call the set of such points S. There are (a^p + 1) − (a + 1) points in S, again by Lemma 1. The following diagram illustrates the situation for a = 3 and p = 2. The black circles are the points of S, of which there are 3² − 3 = 6.

The main idea of the proof is now to split the set S up into its orbits under T_a. What this means is that we pick a point x₀ in S, and repeatedly apply T_a(x) to it, to obtain the sequence of points

This sequence is called the orbit of x₀ under T_a. By Lemma 2, this sequence can be rewritten as

Since we are assuming that x₀ is a fixed point of T_{a ^p}(x), after p steps we hit T_{a ^p}(x₀) = x₀, and from that point onwards the sequence repeats itself.

However, the sequence cannot begin repeating itself any earlier than that. If it did, the length of the repeating section would have to be a divisor of p, so it would have to be 1 (since p is prime). But this contradicts our assumption that x₀ is not a fixed point of T_a.

In other words, the orbit contains exactly p distinct points. This holds for every orbit of S. Therefore, the set S, which contains a ^p − a points, can be broken up into orbits, each containing p points, so a ^p − a is divisible by p.