Files
MAT315-Lecture-Notes/chapters/chapter2.tex
T
2025-02-05 09:58:25 -05:00

681 lines
23 KiB
TeX

\chapter{Congruences}
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Congruences}
\begin{definition}[Congruence]\index{Congruence}
Let \( a, b, m \in \Z \) with \( m > 0 \). We say that \( a \) is \term{congruent} to \( b \) modulo \( m \) if \( m \) divides \( a - b \), \[
a \equiv b \pmod{m} \quad \text{if} \quad m \mid (a - b)
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Congruence is a weaker version of equality.
For example, if \( a = b \) then \( a + c = b + c \), and the same holds for congruences.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
Let \( a, b, c, m \in \Z \) with \( m > 0 \). If \( a \equiv b \pmod{m} \), then \[
a + c \equiv b + c \pmod{m}
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{example}[mod 5]
There are \( 5 \) equivalence classes modulo \( 5 \), \( 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 \) are all distinct modulo \( 5 \).
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
For \( m \), there are \( m \) equivalence classes modulo \( m \), \( 0, 1, 2, \ldots, m - 1 \).
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof (Lemma 2.1.2).]
\[
(a + c) - (b + c) = a - b \equiv 0 \pmod{m}
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
If \( a \equiv b \pmod{m} \) and \( b \equiv c \pmod{m} \), then \( a \equiv c \pmod{m} \).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\[
a - c = (a - b) + (b - c) \equiv 0 \pmod{m}
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
If \( a \equiv b \pmod{m} \)< then \( a c \equiv b c \pmod{m} \).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\[
ac - bc = c(a - b) \equiv 0 \pmod{m}
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
If \( ac \equiv bc \pmod{m} \), then \( a \equiv b \pmod{m} \) if \( m \) coprime to \( c \).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\[
m \mid (ac - bc) \implies m \mid c(a - b)
\]
Since \( m \) is prime, \( m \mid c \) or \( m \mid (a - b) \).
However, \( m \nmid c \) by assumption, so \( m \mid (a - b) \).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
This statement will not hold if \( m \) is not coprime to \( c \).
For example, \( 2 \times 3 \equiv 0 \times 3 \pmod{6} \) but \( 2 \not\equiv 0 \pmod{6} \).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Congruences and Primes}
\begin{theorem}
If \(a \) is coprime to \( m \), then there exists \( b \) such that \( ab \equiv 1 \pmod{m} \).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Bezout's Lemma, there exist \( x, y \) such that \( ax + my = 1 \).
Rearranging, \( ax -1 = -my \equiv 1 \pmod{m} \).
So \( b = x \) satisfies the condition.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Can there be \( b_1 \not\equiv b_2 \pmod{m} \) such that \( ab_1 \equiv 1 \pmod{m} \) and \( ab_2 \equiv 1 \pmod{m} \)?
No. \[
ab_1 \equiv ab_2 \pmod m \implies b_1ab_1 \equiv ab_2b_1 \pmod m \implies b_1 \equiv b_2 \pmod m
\]
\end{remark}
\begin{example}[mod 5]
\begin{itemize}
\item \( 1^{-1} \equiv 1 \pmod{5} \)
\item \( 2^{-1} \equiv 3 \pmod{5} \)
\item \( 3^{-1} \equiv 2 \pmod{5} \)
\item \( 4^{-1} \equiv 4 \pmod{5} \)
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[mod 8]
Does \( 2^{-1} \) exist modulo \( 8 \)?
No! \( 2 \) is not coprime to \( 8 \).
Suppose \( 2b \equiv 1 \pmod{8} \), then \( 2b - 1 = 8k \) for some \( k \in \Z \). This is impossible, as \( 1 \) is not divisible by \( 2 \).
\end{example}
How many \( x \pmod{m} \) are such that \( x^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{m} \)?
For simplicity, we will assume that \( m \) is prime.
There will be only \( 2 \).
\begin{proof}
\( x^2 - 1 \equiv 0 \pmod{m} \iff (x - 1)(x + 1) \equiv 0 \pmod{m} \).
Thus, \( x - 1 \equiv 0 \pmod{m} \) and \( x + 1 \equiv 0 \pmod{m} \) are the only solutions.
\end{proof}
What if \( m = pq \), \( p \neq q \) and \( p, q \) are prime?
There will be \( 4 \) solutions.
\begin{proof}
\( pq \mid (x - 1)(x + 1) \)
\begin{itemize}
\item \( x \equiv \pm 1 \pmod{pq} \)
\item \( x \equiv 1 \pmod{p}, x \equiv -1 \pmod{q} \)
\item \( x \equiv -1 \pmod{p}, x \equiv 1 \pmod{q} \)
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
Open question: how do ew know that we can satisfy both conditions?
\begin{example}
Consider powers of \( 2 \) modulo \( 5 \).
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (2) at (0, 0) {2};
\node (4) at (1, 0) {4};
\node (3) at (2, 0) {3};
\node (1) at (3, 0) {1};
\draw[->] (2) -- (4);
\draw[->] (4) -- (3);
\draw[->] (3) -- (1);
\draw[->] (1) to[bend left] (2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Consider modulo \( 8 \).
\begin{itemize}
\item \( 3^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{8} \)
\item \( 5^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{8} \)
\item \( 7^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{8} \)
\end{itemize}
We see that all numbers coprime to \( 8 \) are congruent to \( 1 \) modulo \( 8 \). This means that \( 1 \) is a generator of the group of units modulo \( 8 \).
\end{example}
For any \( a \not\equiv 0 \pmod{m} \), \( a \) coprime to \( m \), is \( a^k \equiv 1 \pmod{m} \) for some \( k \)?
Yes!
\begin{proof}
Because there is only finitely many options, \[
a^i \equiv a^j \pmod{m}
\] for some \( i > j \).
Thus, \( a^i - a^j \equiv 0 \pmod{m} \), and \( a^j(a^{i - j} - 1) \equiv 0 \pmod{m} \).
Since \( a \) is coprime to \( m \), \( a^{i - j} - 1 \equiv 0 \pmod{m} \implies a^{i - j} \equiv 1 \pmod{m} \).
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Fermat's Little Theorem]\index{Fermat's Little Theorem}
For \( p \in \N \) prime and \( a \in \Z \) coprime to \( p \), \[
a^{p} \equiv a \pmod{p}
\]
In particular, \[
a^{p - 1} \equiv 1 \pmod{p}
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof. (Attempt)]
{~~~}
\begin{itemize}
\item If \( a = 1 \), then the statement is trivial.
\item If \( a = -1 \),
\begin{itemize}
\item \( -1 \equiv 1 \pmod{2} \)
\item For other prime \( p \), \( (-1)^p = -1 \), and \( -1 \equiv 1 \pmod{p} \).
\end{itemize}
\item \( p = 5 \)
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
\( \times \) & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ \hline
1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\
2 & 2 & 4 & 1 & 3 & 5 \\
3 & 3 & 1 & 4 & 2 & 5 \\
4 & 4 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 5 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We observe that in each row of the multiplication table, each number mod \( p \) appear exactly once.
In other words, \( \{ a_1, d_2, \dots, a_{p - 1} \} \) are all distinct, and is a permutation of \( \{ 1, 2, \dots, p - 1 \} \pmod{p} \).
Multiplying the centre row,
\begin{align*}
a (2a) (3a) \cdots ((p-1)a)
& \equiv 1 2 3 \cdots (p-1) \pmod{p} \\
a^{p-1} (1 2 3 \cdots (p-1))
& \equiv 1 2 3 \cdots (p-1) \pmod{p} \\
a^{p-1}
& \equiv 1 \pmod{p}
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Sometimes, \( a^{m-1} \equiv \pmod{m} \) even if \( m \) is not prime.
For \( m \) such that \( 2^{m-1} \equiv 1 \pmod{m} \), \( m \) is called a \term{Carmichael prime}\index{Carmichael prime}.
This offers a test wether a number \( m \) if prime: if \( 2^{m-1} \not\equiv 1 \pmod{m} \), then \( m \) is not prime.
\end{remark}
\begin{note}
How to do fast exponential
Suppose we want to calculate \( a^{100} \). We know \( 100 = 64 + 32 + 4 \), so instead taking the iterative approach, we can calculate \( a^{64} \), \( a^{32} \), and \( a^4 \) and multiply them together.
More precisely,
\begin{itemize}
\item \( a^4 = (a^2)^2 \)
\item \( a^32 = (a^{16})^2 = ((a^8)^2)^2 = (((a^4)^2)^2)^2 \)
\item \( a^{64} = (a^{32})^2 \)
\end{itemize}
\end{note}
\begin{theorem}
What is true if \( m \) is not prime? \[
a^{\varphi(m)} \equiv 1 \pmod{m}
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{definition}[Euler's Totient Function]\index{Euler's Totient Function}
The \term{Euler's Totient Function} \( \varphi(m) \) is the number of integers \( a \) such that \( 1 \leq a \leq m \) and \( a \) is coprime to \( m \).
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
Consider some example
\begin{itemize}
\item \( \varphi(4) = 2 \)
\item \( \varphi(5) = 4 \)
\item \( \varphi(6) = 2 \)
\item \( \varphi(7) = 6 \)
\item \( \varphi(8) = 4 \)
\item \( \varphi(9) = 6 \)
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
% \begin{remark}
% If \( m \) is prime, then \( \phi(m) = m - 1 \).
% \end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Consider \( p \) prime.
\begin{itemize}
\item \( \varphi(p) = p - 1 \)
\item \( \varphi(p^2) = p^2 - p \)
\item \( \varphi(p^k) = p^k - p^{k-1} \)
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Consider \( p_1, p_2 \) prime. \[
\varphi(p_1 p_2) = (p_1 - 1)(p_2 - 1)
\]
\end{remark}
% \begin{remark}
% Consider \( p_1, p_2, \dots, p_k \) prime.
% \[
% \phi(p_1^{k_1} p_2^{k_2} \cdots p_k^{k_k}) = p_1^{k_1} (1 - \frac{1}{p_1}) p_2^{k_2} (1 - \frac{1}{p_2}) \cdots p_k^{k_k} (1 - \frac{1}{p_k})
% \]
% \end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof (Theorem 2.1.8)]
WTS \( a^{\varphi(m)} \equiv 1 \pmod{m} \).
Define \( U_n \) the set of congruence number from 1 to \( m \) coprime to \( m \).
We observe that \( aUm = \{ au: u \in U_m \} \) is also a set of congruence numbers coprime to \( m \), \[
aU_m = U_m.
\]
This is because \( a \) has an inverse modulo \( m \), so \( ab_1 \equiv ab_2 \pmod{m} \implies b_1 \equiv b_2 \pmod{m} \).
\[
\prod_{x \in aU_p} x = a^{\varphi(m)} \left( \pi_{y \in U_p} y \right)
\] and \[
\prod_{x \in aU_p} x \equiv \prod_{y \in U_p} y \pmod{m}
\] so \[
\prod_{y \in U_p} y \equiv a^{\varphi(m)} \left( \pi_{y \in U_p} y \right) \pmod{m}
\]
Since \( y \in U_p \) has an inverse, we cancel this factor, \[
1 \equiv a^{\varphi(m)} \pmod{m}
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Euler's Totient Function}
\begin{theorem}[Chinese Remainder Theorem]\index{Chinese Remainder Theorem}
Let \( m_1, m_2 \) be coprime. Then, for any \( a_1, a_2 \), there exists an \( a \) modulo \( m,n \) such that \[
a \equiv a_1 \pmod{m_1} \quad \text{and} \quad a \equiv a_2 \pmod{m_2}
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}
If given \( a \equiv 1 \pmod{6} \), can answer
\begin{itemize}
\item what \( a \) is modulo \( 7 \)?
\item what \( a \) is modulo \( 2 \) and \( 3 \)?
\end{itemize}
\( a \equiv 1 \pmod{6} \implies a = 6k + 1 \) for some \( k \in \Z \).
Knowing \( a \equiv 1 \pmod{6} \) does not tell us anything about \( a \) modulo \( 7 \). However, it does tell us something about \( a \) modulo \( 2 \) and \( 3 \).
In fact, \( a \equiv 1 \pmod{6} \) tells us that \( a \equiv 1 \pmod{2} \) and \( a \equiv 1 \pmod{3} \). Looking at modulo 6 provides strictly more information than looking at modulo 2 and 3 separately.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
Information modulo \( m \) and \( n \) is decorrelated completely if \( m \) and \( n \) are coprime.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\( \varphi(p_1 p_2) = (p_1 - 1)(p_2 - 1) = \varphi(p_1) \varphi(p_2) \) if \( p_1, p_2 \) are prime.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}[Re-statement of the Chinese Remainder Theorem]
If \( m_1, m_2 \) are coprime, then there is a map \[
\Z/m \to \Z/m_1 \times \Z/m_2
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}[Notation]
\( \Z/m \) means number modulo \( m \). It has \( m \) elements, \( 0, 1, \dots, m - 1 \).
\( \Z/m \) has addition, multiplication, \( \bar{0} \), and \( \bar{1} \)
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
The mapping \( \Z/m \to \Z/m_1 \times \Z/m_2 \) is a bijection.
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}
Consider \( m = 6, m_1 = 2, m_2 = 3 \).
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\( \Z/6 \) & \( \mapsto \) & \( \Z/2 \) & \( \times \) & \( \Z/3 \) \\
1 & & (1 & , & 1) \\
2 & & (0 & , & 2) \\
3 & & (1 & , & 0) \\
4 & & (0 & , & 1) \\
5 & & (1 & , & 2) \\
0 & & (0 & , & 0) \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{example}
\vspace{-2em}
\begin{proof}
WTS the mapping is a bijection.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Injectivity}:
Suppose that \( \varphi(a \mod m) = \varphi(b \mod m) \).
Then, \( a \equiv b \pmod{m_1} \) and \( a \equiv b \pmod{m_2} \), so \( m_1, m_2 \mid (a - b) \).
By unique factorization, \( m = m_1 m_2 | (a - b) \) since \( gcd(m_1, m_2) = 1 \), so \( a \equiv b \pmod{m} \).
\item \textbf{Surjectivity}:
Since \( | \Z/m | = | \Z/m_1 \times \Z/m_2 | \) and the mapping is injective, it must be surjective.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Let \( m_1 = 4 \), \( m_2 = 9 \).
Find \( a \pmod{36} \) such that \( a \equiv 3 \pmod{4} \) and \( a \equiv 5 \pmod{9} \).
\begin{itemize}
\item Method 1
\( a = 4x + 3 \) for some \( x \in \Z \).
We want \( 4x + 3 \equiv 5 \pmod{9} \), so \( 4x \equiv 2 \pmod{9} \).
Since \( 4 \) coprime to \( 9 \), \( 4^{-1} \) exists modulo \( 9 \), so \( x \equiv 4^{-1} \cdot 2 \pmod{9} \).
We have \( 4 \times 2 \equiv 8 \pmod{9} \implies 4 \times (-2) \equiv 1 \pmod{9} \), so \( x \equiv -2 \cdot 2 \equiv -4 \equiv 5 \pmod{9} \).
Then, \( a = 4 \times 5 + 3 = 23 \).
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
This is a direct proof of surjectivity in.
\begin{proof}
WTS \( a \equiv a_1 \pmod{m_1} \) and \( a \equiv a_2 \pmod{m_2} \) for some \( a \).
Let \( a = a_1 + m_1 x \) for some \( x \in \Z \).
\( a + m_1 x \equiv a_2 \pmod{m_2} \iff x \equiv m_1^{-1} (a_2 - a_1) \pmod{m_2} \).
\( m^{-1} \pmod{m_2} \) exists since \( m_1 \) and \( m_2 \) are coprime.
\end{proof}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
An extended version of the Chinese Remainder Theorem states that if \( m_1, m_2, \dots, m_k \) are pairwise coprime, then there is a bijection \[
\Z/m \to \Z/m_1 \times \Z/m_2 \times \cdots \times \Z/m_k
\]
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
Let \( d = gcd(m_1, m_2) \), \( \Z/m \to \Z/m_1 \times \Z/m_2 \) a mapping.
What condition on \( a_1, a_2 \) guarentee existence of \( a \pmod{m} \) such that \( a \equiv a_1 \pmod{m_1} \) and \( a \equiv a_2 \pmod{m_2} \)?
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (zm) at ( 0, 2) {\( \Z/m \)};
\node (zm1) at (-1, 1) {\( a_1 \in \Z/m_1 \)};
\node (zm2) at ( 1, 1) {\( a_2 \in \Z/m_2 \)};
\node (zd) at ( 0, 0) {\( \Z/d \)};
\draw[->] (zm) -- (zm1);
\draw[->] (zm) -- (zm2);
\draw[->] (zm1) -- (zd);
\draw[->] (zm2) -- (zd);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{theorem}
If \( a_1 \equiv a_2 \pmod{d} \), then there exists \( a \) such that \( a \equiv a_1 \pmod{m_1} \) and \( a \equiv a_2 \pmod{m_2} \).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let \( a = a_1 + m_1 x \) for some \( x \in \Z \).
Then, \( a_1 + m_1 x \equiv a_2 \pmod{m_2} \), so \( x_1 x \equiv a_2 - a_1 \pmod{m_2} \).
Since \( a_1 \equiv a_2 \pmod{d} \), \( a_2 - a_1 = dy \) for some \( y \in \Z \).
Then, \( d \cdot \left( \frac{m_1}{d} \right) x \equiv dy \pmod{m_2} \).
This is equivalent to \( d \left( \left( \frac{m_1}{d} \right) x - y \right) \) divisible by \( d \cdot \left( \frac{m_2}{d} \right) \).
Factor \( d \) out, \( \left( \frac{m_1}{d} \right) x - y \) is divisible by \( \left( \frac{m_2}{d} \right) \).
In other words, \( \left( \frac{m_1}{d} \right) x \equiv y \pmod{\frac{m_2}{d}} \).
Now \( \frac{m_1}{d} \) is invertible modulo \( \frac{m_2}{d} \).
Thus, \( x \equiv \left( \frac{m_1}{d} \right)^{-1} y \pmod{\frac{m_2}{d}} \).
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
The map \( \Z / m_1m_2\cdots m_r \to \Z/m_1 \times \cdots \times \Z/m_r \) is a bijection if and only if \( gcd(m_i, m_j) = 1 \) for all \( i \neq j \).
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\( \Z / m \) is a \term{ring}.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}[Ring]\index{Ring}
A \term{ring} is a mathematical structure that satisfies the following axioms:
\begin{itemize}
\item It has an addition \( + \), where \( a + b = b + a \).
\item It has a multiplication \( \times \), where (for commutative rings) \( ab = ba \).
\item It has a unique zero element \( 0 \), where \( 0 + a = a \) for all \( a \).
\item It has a additive inverse \( -a \), where \( a + (-a) = 0 \).
\item It has a unique one element \( 1 \), where \( 1 \times a = a \) for all \( a \).
\item \( a (b + c) = ab + ac \).
\end{itemize}
In particular, if multiplication is commutative, then the ring is a \term{commutative ring}.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
Examples of rings include
\begin{itemize}
\item \( \Z \subseteq \Q \subseteq \R \subseteq \C \).
\item \( \Z \to \Z / m \), \( a \mapsto a \pmod{m} \).
\item Polynomials \( \R[x] \).
\item Vector space \( \R^{\N} \), where multiplication is the element-wise multiplication.
\item \( R^w = ( r_1, r_2, \dots, r_w, 0, 0, \dots) \) is similar to \( \R[x] \).
\( R^{\N} \) is similar to the power series.
\item The power-set \( \PP(S) \) of set \( S \), where
\begin{itemize}
\item \( A + B = (A \setminus B) \cup (B \setminus A) \)
\item \( A \times B = A \cap B \)
\item \( 0 = \emptyset \)
\item \( -A = A \)
\item \( 1 = S \)
\end{itemize}
This is similar to \( \left( \Z/2 \right)^S \).
\end{itemize}
And some non-Examples
\begin{itemize}
\item \( \N_{\geq 0} \) does not have additive inverses.
\item Set of \( 2 \times 2 \) matrices does not have multiplicative commutativity.
\item \( \R[x]_{\text{deg} \leq 10} \) is not closed under multiplication.
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
\begin{definition}
The \term{unit} of a ring \( \RR \) is the set of elements that have a multiplicative inverse, \[
U(\RR) = \RR^\times = \{ a | a \text{ has a multiplicative inverse} \}
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
We consider the following examples.
\begin{itemize}
\item \( \Z^\times = \{ 1, -1 \} \)
\item \( \Q^\times = \Q \setminus \{ 0 \} \)
\item \( (\R[x])^\times = \R^\times = \text{constant polynomials} \)
\item \( (\R^5)^\times = ( \R^\times )^5 = \{ (a, b, c, d, e), a,b,c,d,e \neq 0 \} \)
\item \( ( \Z / m)^\times = \{ a \pmod{m}, gcd(a, m) = 1 \} \).
This is also known as the \term{Euler Totient Function} \( \varphi(m) \).
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Consider \( \Q[\sqrt{2}] = \{ a + b \sqrt{2} \} | a, b \in \R \), where \[
(a + b\sqrt{2})(c + d\sqrt{2}) = ac + \sqrt{2} (ad + bc) + 2bd
\]
Note that \[
\frac{1}{a + b\sqrt{2}} = \frac{a - b\sqrt{2}}{a^2 - 2b^2}
\]
Makes sense as long as \( a^2 - 2b^2 \neq 0 \), so we avoid \( a = b = 0 \).
Otherwise, \( a^2 - 2b^2 = 0 \implies 2 = (a / b)^2 \), and expressing \( \sqrt{2} \) as a rational number is impossible.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Consider \( \Z[\sqrt{2}] = \{ a + b \sqrt{2} \} | a, b \in \Z \).
Similarly, \[
\frac{1}{a + b\sqrt{2}} = \frac{a - b\sqrt{2}}{a^2 - 2b^2}
\] and so \( a + b\sqrt{2} \) is invertible exactly when \( a^2 - 2b^2 = \pm a, b \).
This can happen if \( a^2 - 2b^2 = \pm 1 \).
We could take \( a = \pm 1 \), and \( b = 0, \pm 1 \); or \( a = \pm 2 \), \( b = \pm 2 \).
In fact, \( a^2 - 2b^2 = 1 \) tells us the norm of the number is \( 1 \), and there are infinitely many solutions to this equation -- the power of any existing solution is also a solution, \[
( 3 \pm 2\sqrt{2} )^n, n \in \N
\]
\end{example}
\begin{definition}[Field]\index{Field}
A \term{field} is a commutative ring where every element has a multiplicative inverse (except for \( 0 \)).
In other words, a field is a ring where \( \RR^\times = \RR \setminus \{ 0 \} \).
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\( U(\RR) \) is always a group.
\end{proposition}
\begin{lemma}
\( U(\RR_1 \times \RR_2 \times \cdots \times \RR_k) = U(\RR_1) \times U(\RR_2) \times \cdots \times U(\RR_k) \).
\( \RR_1 \times \cdots \times \RR_n \) has coordinate wise addition and multiplication.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Say we have \( r_1, \dots, r_n \) with inverse \( s_1, \dots, S_n \).
That is, \( (r_1, \dots, r_n)(s_1, \dots, s_n) = (1, \dots, 1) \).
Then, \( (r_1, \dots, r_n) \) has inverse \( (s_1, \dots, s_n) \).
This can happen if and only if \( r_i s_i = 1 \) for all \( i \).
In other words, \( r_i \in U(\RR_i) \) for all \( i \).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
By the lemma and the Chinese Remainder theorem, \[
U( \Z/ 5^2 3^3 7^{10}) = U(\Z/5^2) \times U(\Z/3^7) \times U(\Z/7^{10})
\]
Understanding \( U(\Z/m) \) as a group reduces to understanding \( U(\Z/p^k) \) for prime \( p \).
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}[Cyclic Group]\index{Cyclic Group}
A \term{cyclic group} is a group where all elements are powers of a single element, called the \term{generator} of the group. \[
C = \{ a^k | k \in \Z \} = \langle a \rangle
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
An example of a cyclic group is \( \Z / n\Z \), where \( 1 \) is a generator. Other generators are the numbers coprime to \( n \).
The number of generators of \( \big( \Z / n\Z \big) \) is \( \varphi(n) \).
\end{example}
\begin{example}
We consider \( U(\Z/m) \) for small \( m \).
\begin{itemize}
\item \( U(\Z/2) = \{ 1 \} = \langle 1 \rangle \)
\item \( U(\Z/3) = \{ 1, 2 \} = \langle 2 \rangle \)
\item \( U(\Z/4) = \{ 1, 3 \} = \{ \pm 1 \} = \langle 3 \rangle \)
\item \( U(\Z/5) = \{ 1, 2, 3, 4 \} = \langle 2 \rangle = \langle 3 \rangle \)
\item \( U(\Z/7) = \{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 \} = \langle 3 \rangle = \langle 5 \rangle \)
\item \( U(\Z/8) = \{ 1, 3, 5, 7 \} = \langle 3 \rangle \times \langle 5 \rangle = \{ \pm 1 \}^2 \cong \Z/2 \times \Z/2 \)
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
\begin{definition}[Order of an Element]\index{Order of an Element}
The \term{order} of an element \( g \) in a group \( ( G, \cdot ) \) is the smallest \( k \) such that \( g^k = 1 \).
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
For \( p \) and odd prime, \( U(\Z/p) \) is cyclic.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\( \Z / p \) is a field.
\end{remark}