Empty
  • Empty
Prove the following:
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
katieb
  • katieb
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
Empty
  • Empty
If n>1 and \(\phi(n)\) is Euler's totient function, then \[\phi(n) \equiv 1 \mod 2\] implies that \(n=2\)
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Consider two cases : 1) If \(n\) has a factor of odd prime, \(p\), then \[\phi(n)=\phi(p^km)=\phi(p^k)\phi(m)=(p-1)(p^k-1)\phi(m)\equiv 0\pmod{2}\] 2) if \(n\) has no odd prime factors, then \[\phi(n)=\phi(2^k)=2^k-2^{k-1}=2^{k-1}\equiv 0\pmod{2} ~~\text{for k} \gt 1\]
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
that proves the contrapositive : \(n\ne 2 \implies \phi(n)\not\equiv 1\pmod{2}\)

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

Empty
  • Empty
Interesting! I had come up with this problem through a slightly different way so it was nice to see that this could be proven this way! Thanks!
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
May I know your different way... There is an interesting alternative proof using below property of \(\phi\) function : \[\large \sum\limits_{1\le k\lt n, ~\gcd(n,k)=1}~k~ = ~\frac{1}{2}n\phi(n)\]
Empty
  • Empty
Yeah, essentially that's what I understand but maybe I found it less formally. From the thing I posted in ikram's question the other day, I realized that since relatively prime numbers come in pairs that would imply \(\phi(n)\) is divisible by 2 for all values greater than 2.
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Exactly! that is really a cool observation Since \(\gcd(k,n)=1\iff \gcd(n-k, n)=1\), below two sets are identically equal : \[\{k_1,~k_2,~\ldots,k_{\phi(n)}\}\] and \[\{n-k_1,~n-k_2,~\ldots,n-k_{\phi(n)}\}\] Easy to see that each \(k_i\) pairs up with \(n-k_i\)
Empty
  • Empty
Yeah, now if I can show that at least one of these pairs contains both prime numbers, then you've proven the goldbach conjecture haha. ;P
Empty
  • Empty
Also while playing with the \(\phi\) function I realized a fun little way to easily remember \[n = \sum_{d|n} \phi(d)\] Let's just look at one part of it (after all we know \(n\) is multiplicative) \[\sum_{i=0}^{k} \phi(p^i) \] plugging in \[\phi(p^i) = p^i - p^{i-1}\] Well that's just going to be a telescoping series, so clearly \[p^k = \sum_{i=0}^{k} \phi(p^i) \] Anyways in some sense this almost reminds me of like the fundamental theorem of calculus or Green's theorem, but anyways so something kinda interesting to share and relate.
Empty
  • Empty
Err ok I fixed it, but yeah by that I mean that \(\phi(n)\) is like the derivative of n and the sum over the divisors of n is like the integral: \[n = \sum_{d|n} \phi(d)\] So sorta funny way to look at it maybe. I think I am really just satisfied by the fact that its' a telescoping series honestly. Also we of course might say that if this is really the fundamental theorem of calculus in the "dirichlet sense" whatever this means we also have an alternate way to compute the "derivative" \[\phi(n) = n * \mu(n)\]
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
That is actually one of the proofs of \(n = \sum\limits_{d\mid n}\phi(d)\), but I like more the one which uses just the divisibility argument. Consider the following partition of integers between \(1\) and \(n\) : \[S_d=\{m~|~\gcd(m,n)=d; ~1\le m\le n\}\] Since \(\gcd(m,n)=d \iff \gcd(m/d,n/d)=1\), we have \(|S_d|=\phi(n/d)\). So \[\sum\limits_{d\mid n} |S_d| = \sum\limits_{d\mid n} \phi(n/d) = \sum\limits_{d\mid n} \phi(d)\] the left most sum equals \(n\) because those gcd subsets forma a partition.
Empty
  • Empty
I saw that on MSE but I actually don't fully understand this argument for some reason. I guess it's when they say \(|S_d| = \phi(n/d)\) about there that I lose it I think.
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
can you provide the link
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
just need to notice that \(\phi(n)\) represents the number of positive integers less than \(n\) such that \(\gcd(k,n)=1\)
Empty
  • Empty
I can't seem to find it but they used the exact same argument you did and even called the set \(S_d\) like you did too. Oh well I think I am starting to understand it now, what I don't understand is what "forming a partition" means.
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
|dw:1439268673998:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Easy to see that the gcd subsets form a partition :- they are disjoint because each of the integers from \(1\) to \(n\) can be member of exactly one set (\(S_d\)) as gcd maps each integer to another unique integer (function property)
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
from the diagram, notice that the cardinalities of subsets add up to the cardinality of the set
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
|dw:1439269268456:dw|
Empty
  • Empty
Hmmm I don't quite follow, I'll sleep on it and read this tomorrow I think I just need some rest.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.