Lecture 8 - Chinese Remainder Theorem and Wilson's Theorem

Recap & Summary

Last class period we talked about solving linear congruence equations. Among other techniques, we discussed multiplicative inverses and how they can be used to help solve equations. Along the way we made the statement

5x \equiv 2 \mod{67} if and only if 27\cdot 5x \equiv 27\cdot 2 \mod{67}

We did this because 27 is the multiplicative inverse of 5. But recall that we have

Lemma: cx \equiv cy \mod{m} if and only if x \equiv y \mod{\frac{m}{(c,m)}}.

In light of this result, our multiplication by 27 on both sides of the equivalence above requires that we have (27,67) = 1. We could have checked this by using the Euclidean Algorith, but we claim that we could instead prove

If b is the multiplicative inverse of a modulo m, then (b,m) = 1.

To see that this is true, notice that if b is the multiplicative inverse of a, then a must be the multiplicative inverse of b. Now since b has a multiplicative inverse modulo m, we know that we must have (b,m) = 1.

In today's class, we'll be discussing the Chinese Remainder Theorem and Wilson's Theorem. The former is a technique for finding simultaneous solutions to multiple congruence equations, whereas the latter is a congruence equation which characterizes primes.

The Chinese Remainder Theorem

Recall that in the last class period we showed that the congruence equations

(1)
\begin{equation*}\begin{split} x &\equiv 1 \mod{2} \ x &\equiv 2 \mod{3} \end{split}\end{equation*}

has integer solutions x = -1,5,11,\cdots. The way we came about these solutions was simply by using a "guess and check" technique. What we'd like to do is to develop a more systematic way of coming at this problem. For that, we have

The Chinese Remainder Theorem: If m_1,\cdots,m_k are pairwise relatively prime integers, then the congruence equations x \equiv a_i \mod{m_i} for each 1 \leq i \leq k have a unique solution modulo \prod_{i=1}^k m_i.

Proof: We'll break the proof into two pieces: first we'll construct a simultaneous solution to the given congruences, and then we'll show this solution is unique in the given modulus.

To start, we'll define M = \prod_{j=1}^k m_j, and for each 1 \leq i \leq k we'll write N_i for \frac{M}{m_i}. Now since the m_i are pairwise relatively prime, you showed in your homework (in the course of #43(c) in chapter 1) that (N_i,m_i) = 1. Hence for every i, there exists an integer x_i which satisfies N_ix_i \equiv 1 \mod{m_i}.

With the N_i,x_i so constructed, we claim that

(2)
x = N_1x_1a_1 + \cdots + N_kx_ka_k

is a solution to all the congruences x \equiv a_i \mod{m_i}. To see this is true, fix an integer i, and we'll show that x \equiv a_i \mod{m_i}. Notice that for every j \neq i we have m_i \mid N_j, since N_j is the product of all the moduli except for m_j — in particular, m_i shows up in the product which defines N_j$]]. Hence we have

(3)
x = N_1x_1a_1 + \cdots + N_kx_ka_k \equiv N_ix_ia_i \mod{m_i}.

But now recall that N_ix_i \equiv 1 \mod{m_i}, and so the previous equation becomes x \equiv a_i \mod{m_i} as desired.

Hence we've constructed a solution. To show that all solutions are equivalent modulo M = m_1\cdots m_k, notice that if x_0,x_1 are two solutions to the congruence equations, then we have x_0 \equiv a_i \equiv x_1 \mod{m_i} for every i/. It follows that x_0 \equiv x_1 \mod{m_i} for every i, and so m_i \mid x_0 - x_1. By homework 43(c) in Chapter 1, since the m_i are relatively prime we can conclude that M = m_1\cdots m_k \mid x_0 - x_1. \square

Example: CRT in Action

Suppose that we're given the simultaneous congruences

(4)
\begin{equation*}\begin{split} x &\equiv 3 \mod{10}\ x &\equiv 4 \mod{7}\ x &\equiv 2 \mod{9}. \end{split}\end{equation*}

Our proof of the CRT says that we need to start by computing N_1,N_2,N_3, which in this case are given as N_1 = 7\cdot 9 = 63, N_2 = 10 \cdot 9 = 90 and N_3 = 10\cdot 7 = 70. With these numbers in hand, we now need to solve the congruence equations N_i x_i \equiv 1 \mod{m_i} for each i.

To solve 63x_1 \equiv 1 \mod{10}, notice that 63 \equiv 3 \mod{10}. Hence we're really trying to solve 3x \equiv 1 \mod{10}. Now we could solve this equation by using the Euclidean Algorithm to express the gcd of 10 and 3 as a linear combination of the two, but since the modulus is so small, we can just use "guess and check" to find this inverse. For this, notice that 3\cdot 7 = 21, and that 21 \equiv 1 \mod{10}. Hence we have x_1 = 7.

To solve 90x_2 \equiv 1 \mod{7}, we'll do a similar trick: since 90 \equiv -1 \mod{7}, we're really trying to solve -x_2 \equiv 1 \mod{7}. But this makes it clear that we can take x_2 = -1.

Finally, we need to solve 70x_3 \equiv 1 \mod{9}. Since 70 \equiv 7 \mod{9}, we're trying to solve 7x_3 \equiv 1 \mod{9}. Using "guess and check", we see that x_3 = 4 is the solution we're after.

Now that we've computed all the appropriate terms, our desired solution modulo 10 \cdot 7 \cdot 9 = 630 is therefore

(5)
x = N_1x_1a_1 + N_2x_2a_2 + N_3x_3a_3 = 63 \cdot 7 \cdot 3 + 90 \cdot (-1)\cdot 4 + 70 \cdot 4 \cdot 2.

You can expand that out and see what its least non-negative residue is, but you don't need to if you don't want.\square

The Chinese Remainder Theorem is a really powerful tool for solving simultaneous congruences, but it only tells us how to solve problems where the given moduli are pairwise relatively prime. There are plenty of "real life" scenarios in which the moduli for your system of congruences won't be so nice, though, in which case it's handy to know this stronger version of the CRT:

Strengthened Chinese Remainder Theorem: For arbitrary integers m_1,\cdots,m_k and congruence equations x \equiv a_i \mod{m_i}, there exists a simultaneous solution if and only if (m_i,m_j) \mid a_i - a_j for every i \neq j. When a solution exists, it is unique modulo the least common multiple of the m_i.

We won't worry about proving this for now, but it is good to have in mind.

Example: The Strengthened CRT

Suppose someone asks you to solve the simultaneous equations

(6)
\begin{equation*}\begin{split} x &\equiv 3 \mod{4}\ x &\equiv 5 \mod{8}. \end{split}\end{equation*}

Since you know that (4,8) = 4 and since 4 \nmid 5-3 = 2, you know that this simultaneous system has no solutions.

Wilson's Theorem

We'll end class today by discussing Wilson's Theorem. This shows us another reason that modular arithmetic is powerful: it gives a modular criterion for determining whether an integer is prime or not. The statement of the theorem is as follows:

Wilson's Theorem: An integer n satisfies (n-1)! \equiv -1 \mod{n} if and only if n is prime.

In order to prove the theorem, we'll start with the following

Lemma: For a prime p, the only congruence classes which are their own inverses (modulo p) are \pm 1. That is to say, the only a such that aa \equiv 1 \mod{p} are those a which satisfy a \equiv \pm 1 \mod{p}.

Proof: It isn't hard to see that if a \equiv \pm 1 \mod{p}, then we must have a^2 \equiv 1 \mod{p}. So suppose we're told that a^2 \equiv 1 \mod{p}, and we'll show that a \equiv \pm 1 \mod{p}.

Notice that the congruence a^2 \equiv 1 \mod{p} means that p \mid a^2 - 1= (a-1)(a+1). Euclid says that either p \mid a-1 — in which case a \equiv 1 \mod{p} — or p \mid a+1 — in which case a \equiv -1 \mod{p}. In either case, then, we get the desired conclusion.\square

Example: The prime 11

To see why this is handy, let's compute the inverses of each congruence class modulo 11. These are given by

The number Its Inverse mod 11
1 1
2 6
3 4
4 3
5 9
6 2
7 8
8 7
9 5
10 10

This means when I compute (11-1)! = 10! modulo 11, I get

(7)
\begin{equation*}\begin{split} 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 3 \cdot 4 \cdot 5 \cdot 6 \cdot 7 \cdot 8 \cdot 9 \cdot 10 &= 1 \cdot (2\cdot 6) \cdot (3 \cdot 4) \cdot (5 \cdot 9) \cdot (7 \cdot 8) \cdot 10 \\ &\equiv 1\cdot 1 \cdot 1 \cdot 1 \cdot 1 \cdot 10 \equiv -1 \mod{11}. \end{split}\end{equation*}

\square

With this as our motivating example, we're ready to prove

If p is prime, then [{$(p-1)! \equiv -1 \mod{p}$]].

Proof: If p is prime, then we know that every integer between 1 and p-1 is relatively prime to p. We'll take the integers between 1 and p-1 and put them into groups by pairing a number a with its multiplicative inverse modulo p. According to our lemma, only 1 and -1 can't be paired with another (different) integer in this way. Hence we can rearrange the numbers between 2 and p-2 so that they sit in a sequence where every pair of numbers multiplies to 1 modulo p. Hence we have

(8)
(p-1)! \equiv 1 \cdot 2 \cdot \cdots \cdot (p-2) \cdot (p-1) \equiv 1 \cdot (p-1) \equiv -1 \mod{p}.

\square

Add a new comment
page_revision: 3, last_edited: 1221748904|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z (%O ago)
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License