Fermat's Little Theorem | A Proof of Fermat's Little Theorem from Number Theory

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 6 вер 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 63

  • @coldsoup49
    @coldsoup49 4 роки тому +10

    Awesome explanation! I’d forgotten why the theorem works, and this was the perfect refresher for me. Keep up the good work!

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  4 роки тому +3

      Thanks so much. Happy to have you on the channel. Check out the proof using combinatorics that's linked at the end of the video; that's a really cool one.

  • @MalH-zz7lm
    @MalH-zz7lm 4 місяці тому

    still confused but less confused, thanks for the good explanation

  • @AbdulrahmanAlanazi-yf2dk
    @AbdulrahmanAlanazi-yf2dk Рік тому

    one of the best channeles on youtube for explaining discreate math topics

  • @user-zd4fq8sx8e
    @user-zd4fq8sx8e 10 місяців тому

    This was extremely useful! Could you upload a video where you prove the same using Euler's totient theorem? (Any help from others in the comment section would be appreciated too!)

  • @billyjames3046
    @billyjames3046 4 роки тому +4

    Excellent video, consider making a Patreon so we can support you more.

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  4 роки тому +1

      Hi Billy. Thanks! I'll have to look into this suggestion. Several people have made the same suggestion on here in the past.

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  4 роки тому +2

      Thanks again for the suggestion. I made one! www.patreon.com/ProfOmarMath

  • @yarenkaya7872
    @yarenkaya7872 2 роки тому

    Not only intuitional but it is also shown why a*2a*3a*4a*5a...(p-1)a has the same remainder with 1*2*3*4*5*6*...(p-1) when divided by p.
    Excellent explanation, sir

  • @thedoublehelix5661
    @thedoublehelix5661 4 роки тому

    When my friend showed me a similar proof for euler's theorem that had to do with rearrangements of the units, my mind was BLOWN. Such a good time.

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  4 роки тому

      It all coalesces in the group theory proof

  • @tobysmith2081
    @tobysmith2081 2 роки тому +1

    Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. Thank you so much!

  • @Musiclover5258
    @Musiclover5258 Рік тому

    I am a late career person trying to master cryptography, so I need to firm up my number theory. Thank you so much, Professor, for a lucid layout of this proof!!

  • @JulianoPenna
    @JulianoPenna 3 роки тому +2

    Wish I could like it more than once!

  • @geometrydashmega238
    @geometrydashmega238 4 роки тому +2

    Nice explanation. You used the primality near the end to say that a^(p-1) - a was divisible by p necessarily because the other factor, (p-1)!, can't be divisible by p, because p has no factors less than it except 1.

    • @geometrydashmega238
      @geometrydashmega238 4 роки тому

      I guess this explains the intuition behind Euler's generalization, as we would only take those numbers less than n, for some n, which are coprime with n. In that case, again the product of all of these can't be divisible by n because they have no common factors other than 1, so a^(phi(n)) - 1 has to be divisible by n... Where did I miss that n and a have to be coprime?

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  4 роки тому +2

      Your intuition is right on track for Euler's Theorem; similar proof idea. The primality (and in Euler the coprimeness) comes up when we claim a,2a,3a,...,(p-1)a all have no common factors with p. In Euler's Theorem, you instead consider the product of a with numbers from 1 through n-1 that are coprime with n.

  • @mathadventuress
    @mathadventuress 4 роки тому +1

    Also professor im not sure if you are aware but your channel is set up for kids?
    So we can't hit the bell to get notifications

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  4 роки тому +1

      Oh WOW, thanks so much for informing me about this, I had no idea!

    • @mathadventuress
      @mathadventuress 4 роки тому

      @@ProfOmarMath no problem

  • @kevinmorgan2317
    @kevinmorgan2317 Рік тому

    This is excellent

  • @adamz1051
    @adamz1051 3 роки тому

    Nice proof ! And this gave me a question :
    Let P is a natural number
    If for any integer a
    we have
    a^p -a congruent to 0 mod p
    Then p is a prime ?
    In other words
    Does Ferma's little theorem give us double implication ?
    Thanks.

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  3 роки тому

      Check out Lehmer's Theorem 😀

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  3 роки тому +1

      If I remember from when I was in undergrad, p=561 is a counterexample if you restrict to gcd(a,p)=1

    • @adamz1051
      @adamz1051 3 роки тому

      Thank you !
      I have been looking for an answer for a while now
      As an 18 years old student in highschool my professors can't answer questions like these so really thank you
      Unfortunately , it doesn't work the other way around !
      Or it maybe could have helped
      Keep up the good work !

  • @srila6893
    @srila6893 4 роки тому

    Thanks for giving an intuitive proof of Fermat's theorem. I believe if p is relatively prime to this argument still works. Is that true?

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  4 роки тому

      Thanks Sri! Do you mean Euler's Theorem, that a^n and a are congruent mod n if a is relatively prime to n? I will be presenting that in a video that's coming in a few weeks :)

  • @akshivepandey4163
    @akshivepandey4163 3 роки тому

    This is awesome!

  • @mathadventuress
    @mathadventuress 4 роки тому +1

    I haven't taken this class yet 🤣🤣
    Trying to keep up.
    Also-- have you heard of p-adic numbers?

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  4 роки тому

      That's great. You have a preview now!
      Yes p-adic numbers are actually very interesting and lead to a variety of interesting avenues in abstract algebra.

    • @mathadventuress
      @mathadventuress 4 роки тому

      @@ProfOmarMath my friend mentioned them to me--he has a degree in number theory. You can get very big numbers vry fast? From what I remember

  • @papanujian7758
    @papanujian7758 4 роки тому

    Awesome. Thank you, prof

  • @shurjoaunibar
    @shurjoaunibar 4 роки тому

    Best video ever!

  • @joetursi9573
    @joetursi9573 2 роки тому

    You're still the best!

  • @harshitdudani1176
    @harshitdudani1176 2 роки тому

    Very well explained :)

  • @sushanthreddy3929
    @sushanthreddy3929 3 роки тому

    very well explained

  • @anindyabiswas1551
    @anindyabiswas1551 4 роки тому +1

    I have seen the proof with mathematical induction method.

    • @ProfOmarMath
      @ProfOmarMath  4 роки тому +2

      Does this use the binomial theorem arguing that p choose k has p as a factor?

    • @anindyabiswas1551
      @anindyabiswas1551 4 роки тому +2

      @@ProfOmarMath Yes, sir!

  • @canyadigit6274
    @canyadigit6274 3 роки тому

    Very nice video!

  • @yashvardhan2093
    @yashvardhan2093 3 роки тому

    Sir plz teach quadratic reciprocity.

  • @nawusayipsunam1643
    @nawusayipsunam1643 3 роки тому

    Yes.. I understand it.

  • @joetursi9573
    @joetursi9573 3 роки тому +1

    simply the best.

  • @PikasoCapture
    @PikasoCapture Рік тому

    big brain time

  • @pandabearguy1
    @pandabearguy1 3 роки тому

    Why prove it? Why not just believe it? Much more powerful