Proof
A fairly simple proof of the lemma, reminiscent of one of the simplest proofs of Fermat's little theorem, can be obtained by evaluating the product
modulo p in two different ways. On one hand it is equal to
The second evaluation takes more work. If x is a nonzero residue modulo p, let us define the "absolute value" of x to be
Since n counts those multiples ka which are in the latter range, and since for those multiples, −ka is in the first range, we have
Now observe that the values |ra| are distinct for r = 1, 2, ..., (p−1)/2. Indeed, if |ra| = |sa|, then ra = ±sa, and therefore r = ±s (because a is invertible modulo p), so r = s because they are both in the range 1 ≤ r ≤ (p−1)/2. But there are exactly (p−1)/2 of them, so they must just be some rearrangement of the integers 1, 2, ..., (p−1)/2. Therefore
Comparing with our first evaluation, we may cancel out the nonzero factor
and we are left with
This is the desired result, because by Euler's criterion the left hand side is just an alternative expression for the Legendre symbol (a/p).
Read more about this topic: Gauss's Lemma (number Theory)
Famous quotes containing the word proof:
“The moment a man begins to talk about technique that’s proof that he is fresh out of ideas.”
—Raymond Chandler (1888–1959)
“From whichever angle one looks at it, the application of racial theories remains a striking proof of the lowered demands of public opinion upon the purity of critical judgment.”
—Johan Huizinga (1872–1945)
“The thing with Catholicism, the same as all religions, is that it teaches what should be, which seems rather incorrect. This is “what should be.” Now, if you’re taught to live up to a “what should be” that never existed—only an occult superstition, no proof of this “should be”Mthen you can sit on a jury and indict easily, you can cast the first stone, you can burn Adolf Eichmann, like that!”
—Lenny Bruce (1925–1966)