1
$\begingroup$

Possible Duplicate:
A question about the proof that $(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^\times$ is cyclic

The fact that $\mathbb{Z}_p^*=\left\{ k\in\mathbb{N}_1 : \gcd(k,p)=1 \right\}$ is a cyclic group was extremely useful for me many times. But I'm afraid I completely don't know how to prove that, what makes me upset. Is the proof very difficult? Is it constructive, I mean that finds a generator? From Fermat little theorem we have $\forall_{a\in\mathbb{Z}_p^*}a^{p-1}\equiv_p 1$, but $p-1$ does not have to be the smallest exponent for all $a$.

  • 1
    http://mathoverflow.net/questions/54735/collecting-proofs-that-finite-multiplicative-subgroups-of-fields-are-cyclic2012-08-21
  • 0
    May I ask what is $\mathbb N_1$ ?2012-08-21
  • 0
    that group, assuming you view the set as a subset of Z_p, is guaranteed to be cyclic if p is prime. Otherwise, it may or may not be. More generally, any finite subgroup of the multiplicative subgroup of a field is cyclic. The proof relies on the following characterization of finite cyclic groups: A finite group is cyclic iff for every divisor d of the order of the group there are at most \phi(d) elements of order d. The proof is a bit tricky but not that difficult.2012-08-21
  • 2
    Theorem: "Any finite subgroup of the multiplicative group of any *field* is cyclic". The proof, depending on what you already know, may be slightly lengthy but it is easy and elementary. You can find it in many places, for example in Serre's excelent and delicious "A Course in Arithmetic"2012-08-21
  • 0
    $\mathbb{N}_1$ is a set of natural numbers without zero, I wanted to mark it somehow. Also I'm interested only in situation where $p$ is prime number, maybe in this particular case the proof can be easier? I know only basics of group and number theory.2012-08-21
  • 1
    I disagree that this Question is an exact duplicate, because the issue is explicitly raised here (but not in the linked question) as to whether the proof (that $\mathbb{Z}_p^*$ has a primitive element) is constructive. I presume that many readers will know that it is *not* constructive (see [this Question](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/124408/3111)), but since this aspect is not dealt with in the proposed duplicate, I'm voting to reopen.2012-08-21

1 Answers 1