2
$\begingroup$

Are there any short, elegant proofs known for the identity $\varphi(p^{k})=p^{k}-p^{k-1}$ ? (Here $\varphi$ is Euler's totient function and $p$ is a prime.)

The standard combinatorial proof goes like this:

In the set $\left\{ 1,2\ldots,p^{k}\right\} $ there in total $p^{k}$ number. Split this set into $p$ subsets $\left\{ 1,\ldots,p\right\} $, $\left\{ p+1,\ldots,2p\right\} \ldots$ Then in each of these sets there is only one number -- namely the one of the form $m\cdot p$ for some suitable $m$, that divides $p^{k}$. There are in total $\frac{p^{k}}{p}=p^{k-1}$ such sets, so in total $p^{k-1}$-many number from $\left\{ 1,2\ldots,p^{k}\right\} $ divide $p^{k}$. Thus $(p^{k}-p^{k-1})$-many numbers are coprime to $p^k$, which proves the identity. $\square$

(A different proof that is often encountered assumes that we know that $\varphi(n)=n\prod_{p\mid n}(1-\frac{1}{p})$, from which our identity follows immediately. But this is actually a longer proof, since proving the auxiliary identity is longer.)

Surprisingly, I would have imagined that there are tons of wildly different proofs of such a basic fact out there, but a preliminary internet seach as well as book skimming returned only (minor variations of) these two proofs.

EDIT The present proofs are more or less reformulations (very polished with details hidden as good as possible - but still reformulations) of my first proofs. What I'm looking for are more radically different approaches (if these exist).

  • 1
    If $gcd(n,p^k) > 1$ then $gcd(n,p) > 1$ so that $n = mp$ for some $m$2017-02-14
  • 0
    There is a nice proof involving the Moebius function, but I guess it's too advanced.2017-02-14
  • 0
    @user1952009 And ... ?2017-02-14
  • 0
    @Batominovski Hm...can you give me a reference to have a quick look ?2017-02-14
  • 1
    @temo There are $p^{k-1}$ possible values for $m$... This is trivial, elegant-proofs are for non-trivial things.2017-02-14
  • 0
    @user1952009 Well, what you wrote was indeed trivial. The proof of the identity in the answer - while also in the category "trivial"- is a shade less trivial I would say. Anyway, here's a "counterexample": Pythagoras' theorem is also trivial - yet there are hundred of proofs of it.2017-02-14
  • 1
    @temo The Pythagorean theorem isn't trivial at all in Euclidean geometry.2017-02-14
  • 0
    @user1952009 Well, what's "trivial" ultimately is a matter of experience and taste (e.g. some proofs of Grothendieck's lemmas in his PhD, AFAIK, were fairly abstract, yet his proof was a one-word "trivial" - or "évident"). And we surely don't what to get into flamewars of there things, don't we ?2017-02-14
  • 0
    As you can see, all the proofs that have been given so far by other users are essentially the same as the combinatorial proof, just dressed up with machinery. In my opinion, the most elegant proof is the obvious one. There's no need to overcomplicate things-- not many things come easily in math, so when you get a proof this easy it's something to be happy about.2017-02-16
  • 0
    @Batominovski This would be a good time to give the reference (or explicit proof) using the Moebius function :)2017-02-17
  • 0
    C'mon. It is a simple google search: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/487599/seeking-for-a-proof-on-the-relation-between-euler-totient-and-m%C3%B6bius-function. Then, plug in $n=p^k$.2017-02-17
  • 0
    @Batominovski Ah, sorry, I somehow thought that that was some deep, rather unknown proof and therefore didn't think about looking for it here.2017-02-20
  • 0
    Quite similar to this question: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/629933/properties-of-the-euler-totient-function/2017-02-20

8 Answers 8

0

Curiously nobody has used the product form of the Euler totient's function. If you are still interested, here is a proof more on the analytical side of the theory.

Since

$$ \varphi(n) = n \prod_{p|n} \left( 1-\frac{1}{p} \right), $$

replace $n=p^\alpha$ and you are done. The proof of the formula you can find it here.

5

Hint $\,\ \gcd(a,p^k)>1 \iff p\mid a \iff a\, \equiv\,\overbrace{ 1p,\,2p,3p,\ldots,\color{#c00}{p^{k-1}}p}^{\large\quad\color{#c00}{p^{\Large k-1}}\ \rm elements}\,\pmod{\!p^k}$

Thus there are $\,\color{#c00}{p^{k-1}}$ non-coprime residues, so $\,p^k - \color{#c00}{p^{k-1}}$ coprime residues mod $p^k$.

5

A beautiful proof for the second identity you mention is probabilistic :

Take the set $\{1,...,n\}$ with the uniform probability measure (i.e. $P(\{i\}) = 1/n$ for any $i\in \{1,...,n\}$).

Then $\phi(n)/n = P(\{k, gcd(n,k) = 1\}) = P(\{k, \forall p$, prime, $(p$ divides $n) \implies (p$ doesn't divide $k)\} = P(\displaystyle\bigcap_{p\mid n} \{k, p$ doesn't divide $k\})$. Now it is easily proved that the events $(\{k, p$ divides $k\})_{p\mid n}$ are independent (just compute it) and so their complements are as well, which shows that

$\phi(n)/n = \prod_{p\mid n}(1- 1/p)$

That lets you conclude

4

Yes, a one-line proof: $$(\mathbf Z/p^k\mathbf Z)^\times= \mathbf Z/p^k\mathbf Z\smallsetminus (p\mathbf Z/p^k\mathbf Z),\enspace\text{and}\quad p\mathbf Z/p^k\mathbf Z\simeq\mathbf Z/p^{k-1}\mathbf Z. $$ And a detail on a second line (well, a sesquiline…) for the isomorphism: \begin{align}p\mathbf Z/p^k\mathbf Z&\longrightarrow\mathbf Z/p^{k-1}\mathbf ,\\ px+p^k\mathbf Z&\longmapsto x+p^{k-1}\mathbf Z. \end{align}

  • 0
    $\simeq$ as what ?2017-02-14
  • 0
    @user1952009: What do you mean: some details on the isomorphism?2017-02-14
  • 0
    Hm...I'll have to think a bit about this, if this does not make too much use of "advanced machinery". In any case, could you please elaborate (another one-liner would be enough) how to establish the isomorphism ?2017-02-14
  • 0
    @temo it's simple; there is a natural map $\Bbb Z\to p\Bbb Z$ and a natural map $p\Bbb Z\to p\Bbb Z/p^k\Bbb Z$. Compose the two and check that the kernel is $p^{k-1}\Bbb Z$.2017-02-14
  • 0
    Ah thanks. Number theory is sooo far away from me now, that I got a bit rusty.2017-02-14
  • 0
    @temo: Here it is. Of course one has to check it is well-defined, &c., but really, everything is contained in the initial half-line isomorphism.2017-02-14
  • 0
    isomorphism of what structure ...2017-02-14
  • 0
    Abelian group structure.2017-02-14
3

Among the numbers in $\{1,2,\ldots,p^k\}$ exactly $p^{k-1}$ have at least one factor $p$. Since $p^k$ has no prime factors other than $p$ it follows that $\phi(p^k)=p^k-p^{k-1}$.

  • 0
    Same as the proof in my answer.2017-02-16
  • 1
    Which in turn is, at the core, the same as the proof in my question (though in a slicker dress)...2017-02-17
2

Denote by $C_r$ the cyclic group of order $r$ and by $g_r$ the number of generators of $C_r$. Then for a prime $p$ the homomorphism $C_{p^k} \rightarrow C_{p^{k-1}}: g \mapsto g^p$, for $k>1$, maps generators onto generators and the size of a preimage of an element by the homomorphism is $p$ so $g_{p^k} = pg_{p^{k-1}}$. for the case $k = 1$ obviously $g_p = p-1$, so by induction we have $g_{p^k} =p^{k-1}(p-1)$.

1

As the only prime that divides $p^k$ is $p$, we only need to look at integers in $\{1,\dots,p^k-1\}$ that have $p$ as a factor.

There are precisely $p^{k-1}-1$ of these.

So $\phi(p^k)=(p^k-1)-(p^{k-1}-1)=p^k-p^{k-1}$.

  • 0
    Why not simply look at integers in $\{1,\ldots,p^k\}$ instead? Then you save having to add "$-1$" four times.2017-02-22
  • 0
    $\phi(p^k)$ counts integers coprime to $p^k$, so $p^k$ itself doesn't count.2017-02-22
  • 0
    Of course, what I'm saying is that if you include this in your counting then you immediately get $p^k - p^{k-1}$ instead of having to cancel out the $-1$s. Not excluding $p^k$ a priori is less cumbersome and adheres closer to the general definition of $\phi$.2017-02-22
1

$\mathbf Z/n\mathbf Z$ is an additive group with $n$ elements and has $\varphi(d)$ elements of order $d$ for each divisor $d$ of n. This is a well known fact that leads to Gauss 'formula: $$\sum_{d|n} \varphi(d) = n$$ So $$p^{k+1} = \sum_{d|p^{k+1}} \varphi(d) = \varphi(p^{k+1}) + \sum_{d|p^k} \varphi(d) = \varphi(p^{k+1}) + p^k$$ and $$\varphi(p^{k+1}) = p^{k+1} - p^k = p^k (p-1)$$ QED

  • 0
    I gave you the bounty, as I felt that this proof was conceptually the most beautiful one, as a lot of not-so-beautiful technical details (even though they're the same as in the other proofs) are completely hidden away in this formulation.2017-02-21