Section 7.2 From Linear to General
Subsection 7.2.1 Combining solutions
One of the most important things we can do is study congruences with prime (power) modulus, because we can combine their solutions to get solutions for any congruences when we combine the Chinese Remainder Theorem and Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic (recall Proposition 6.5.1). Even more interestingly, we can combine the numbers of solutions. Informally, if you want to get the total number of solutions of a polynomial congruence, just write the modulus as a product of prime powersExample 7.2.1.
For instance, if
Fact 7.2.2.
Let
Then the congruence
Proof.
For all \(i\text{,}\) among the \(N_i\) solutions to the \(i\)th congruence choose a solution \(a_i\text{,}\) so that
Since the moduli \(n_i\) for these congruences are coprime, we can use the Chinese Remainder Theorem to obtain one number \(a\) such that \(a\equiv a_i\) (mod \(n_i\)) for all \(i\text{.}\)
Since (integer) polynomials are exclusively made up of addition and multiplication on integers, and addition and multiplication are well-defined, we also have \(f(a)\equiv f(a_i)\equiv 0\) (mod \(n_i\)), so as promised we have a solution
Each such set of \(a_i\) will yield a solution, and if \(\{a_i\}_{i=1}^k\neq \{b_i\}_{i=1}^k\) then if \(a_j\not\equiv b_j\) (mod \(n_j\)) they certainly are not equivalent modulo \(\prod_{i=1}^k n_i\) either.
Now multiply how many solutions there are for each \(n_i\) to get the total number of combinations of solutions. If there are \(N_i\) solutions modulo \(n_i\text{,}\) we would get \(\prod_{i=1}^k N_i\text{.}\) There aren't any additional answers, because any answer to the ‘big’ congruence automatically also satisfies the ‘little’ ones; if \(\prod_{i=1}^k n_i\mid f(a)\text{,}\) then certainly \(n_i\mid f(a)\) as well.
Subsection 7.2.2 Prime power congruences
We have already discussed prime power congruences in Subsection 6.5.2. Recall that in Examples 6.5.3 and 6.5.4 we took the (obvious) solution ofTheorem 7.2.3. Hensel's Lemma.
For
Assume the technical condition that
of the form
where
Proof.
If \(p\) and \(f'(x_{e-1})\) are relatively prime, then by Proposition 5.1.1 any linear congruence of the form \(f'(x_{e-1})k\equiv b \text{ (mod }p)\) with coefficient \(a=f'(x_{e-1})\text{,}\) unknown \(k\text{,}\) and known \(b\) can be solved (uniquely modulo \(p\text{,}\) given the \(\gcd\) condition). Since \(x_{e-1}\) is a known zero of \(f(x)\) for modulus \(p^{e-1}\text{,}\) we know that as an integer (not modulo anything) \(p^{e-1}\mid f(x_{e-1})\text{.}\)
This means that \(-\frac{f(x_{e-1})}{p^{e-1}}\) exists in \(\mathbb{Z}\text{,}\) so if we set \(b=-\frac{f(x_{e-1})}{p^{e-1}}\) there will indeed be a solution \(k\) to the congruence \(\frac{f(x_{e-1})}{p^{e-1}}+k\cdot f'(x_{e-1})\equiv 0\text{ (mod }p\text{)}\text{.}\) Then the only question becomes why \(x_{e}=x_{e-1}+kp^{e-1}\) is actually a solution to \(f(x)\equiv 0\text{ (mod }p^{e})\text{.}\)
To see this, think of \(f\) as a polynomial with terms of the form \(c_i x^i\text{,}\) e.g. \(f(x)=\sum_{i=0}^n c_i x^i\text{.}\) Then \(f(x_{e-1}+kp^{e-1})\) can be expanded out term-by-term in the following form:
Let's break this down on a term-by-term basis in the sum. Each term will look like
Since \(e\geq 2\) in this context, the extra terms (from Taylor or binomial series 2 ) involving \(p^{(e-1)2}\) will be divisible by at least \(p^e\) and hence be trivial in that modulus. Thus, each term in the sum will be equivalent to
Now add up the terms of the sum for all \(i\) to find out something about \(f(x_e)\text{.}\) Summing up the \(c_i x_{e-1}^i\) will give us \(f(x_{e-1})\text{,}\) while summing up \(i x_{e-1}^{i-1}\) is adding terms that look like the derivative of polynomials, so the sum of \(c_i\cdot i x_{e-1}^{i-1}\cdot kp^{e-1}\) yields \(f'(x_{e-1})\cdot kp^{e-1}\text{.}\) Summarizing this paragraph,
By hypothesis \(p^{e-1}\mid f(x_{e-1})\text{,}\) and obviously \(p^{e-1}\mid f'(x_{e-1})\cdot kp^{e-1}\) and \(p^e\text{;}\) so by necessity \(p^{e-1}\mid f(x_e)\) as well. Now recall Proposition 5.2.6, where we are allowed to cancel a nonzero divisor from “all three sides” of a congruence. Then we have that
but the right-hand expression is divisible by \(p\) by our original hypothesis, so \(f(x_e)/p^{e-1}\equiv 0\text{ (mod }p)\text{.}\) Using Proposition 5.2.6 again we multiply everything by \(p^{e-1}\) and obtain
as desired.
Historical remark 7.2.4. Hensel's Lemma.
The German mathematician Kurt Hensel was a grandson of the famous pianist and composer Fanny Mendelssohn; he was apparently the first one to use the term Fermat's Little Theorem for the result we will see in Theorem 7.5.3. The lemma as presented here is only the finite case of his use of it to develop the
Example 7.2.5.
First let's tackle
Let
which simplifies to
And indeed
Now try the same procedure with
Example 7.2.6.
We can try the same process with
This reduces to
yields
It's good practice to try the same process with