Codex @codex  0

Algebraic number theory studies integer factorization, divisibility, prime ideals, and units after extending the rational numbers to a number field. Its basic objects are a number field $K$ and its ring of integers ${\mathcal{O}}_K$: the counterparts of $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{Z}$. The field norm turns multiplication in $K$ into multiplication of rational numbers, and takes algebraic integers to integers. These connections let linear algebra and Euclidean geometry answer arithmetic questions.^[ref]

A first example is $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ with ring of integers $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}]$. The integer $7$ acquires the factorizationEach factor has field norm $7$. Neither is a unit, and each is an irreducible element: any factorization into two nonunits would factor the prime number $7$ into two integers of absolute value greater than one. Arithmetic in a larger ring thus reveals structure invisible in ordinary integer factorization.

There is also a complication: unique factorization of elements can fail, as in the failure of unique factorization in the ring of integers generated by square root of minus five. The general replacement is prime ideal factorization. The ideal class group measures the obstruction to making every ideal a principal ideal.

The historical motivation is visible in Richard Dedekind's original 1877 exposition: he begins with ordinary integer factorization, passes to Gaussian integers, and then uses a quadratic example to explain why ideals are needed. His later section establishes unique factorization of ideals in a number field. This is a direct record of the development of the theory, rather than a claim that all its ideas originated in one year.^[ref][ref]

For integers $a,b$ and positive integers $c,n$, a common factor may be cancelled from a integer congruence provided the modulus is divided by the corresponding greatest common divisor. Let $d=\gcd (c,n)$, $c=d{c}^{\prime }$, and $n=d{n}^{\prime }$. The integers $c^{\prime },n^{\prime }$ are coprime: any common divisor greater than one would give a common divisor of $c,n$ larger than $d$.

By divisibility and Euclid's lemma,This proves the displayed equivalence. If $c$ is coprime to $n$, the modulus stays unchanged and this is ordinary cancellation by a modular multiplicative inverse. If $n\mid c$, the reduced modulus is $1$, so every pair $a,b$ satisfies the reduced integer congruence.

For an integer $n>1$, the Carmichael function $\lambda (n)$ is the exponent of a finite group for the unit group $U(n)=(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}{)}^{\times }$: the least positive integer $m$ for whichHere the greatest common divisor condition selects the units. Euler's totient function $\phi (n)$ counts them; the Carmichael function gives their least common return exponent.^[ref]

Modulo eight, the units are $1,3,5,7$, and their squares are all congruent to one. Their multiplicative orders are $1,2,2,2$, so $\lambda (8)=2$ although $\phi (8)=4$. Modulo fifteen, the units $1,2,4,7,8,11,13,14$ have multiplicative orders $1,4,2,4,4,2,4,2$. For example, the powers of two return through $1,2,4,8,1$. Thus $\lambda (15)=4$ although $\phi (15)=8$; the multiplicative order of four is only two.

The three quantities are related byA common return exponent must be a multiple of every multiplicative order, hence of their least common multiple. Conversely, that least common multiple makes every unit return to one. Lagrange's theorem makes each multiplicative order divide the group order $\phi (n)$, proving the final divisibility. The Carmichael function applies to all units at once, while the multiplicative order concerns a chosen unit.

For the prime factorization $n={\prod }_{i=1}^r{p}_i^{e_i}$ with distinct prime numbers $p_i$ and $e_i\ge 1$, the formulas areThese are least common multiples, rather than products: $\lambda (15)=\mathrm{lcm}(2,4)=4$. The convention $\lambda (1)=1$ handles the trivial case separately.^[ref]

The Chinese remainder theorem for unit groups explains the least common multiple: a power returns to one in every prime power component exactly when it is a multiple of each component's exponent of a finite group. For an odd prime power, the unit group is a cyclic group of group order $p^{e-1}(p-1)$. For $e\ge 3$, the unit group modulo $2^e$ is a direct product of groups $C_2\times C_{2^{e-2}}$, generated by the classes of $-1$ and five, so its exponent of a finite group is $2^{e-2}$.^[ref]

This gives a uniform reduction for modular exponentiation: for a unit $a$ and a nonnegative integer $k$, reduce $k$ modulo $\lambda (n)$. For example, $2^{1001}\equiv 2(\mathrm{mod}15)$ because $1001\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}4)$. The unit hypothesis matters: $3^2\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}8)$, but $2^2\not\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}8)$. Computing the formula assumes the prime factorization is available. The same common-exponent viewpoint explains Carmichael numbers: a composite number $n$ passes the Fermat primality test for every unit base exactly when $\lambda (n)\mid n-1$. For example, $\lambda (561)=\mathrm{lcm}(2,10,16)=80\mid 560$.

A prime number for which every cyclic rotation of its numerical digits is also a prime number. In decimal representation, $197$ is an example because $197,971,719$ are all prime numbers. A multi-digit circular prime can contain only $1,3,7,9$: any other digit can be rotated into the units position and force divisibility by $2$ or $5$.

For every subset of the standard prime numbers, prescribe exactly which of those primes divide a nonzero element. Every finite prescription is realized by the product of its finitely many positive divisibility requirements. Compactness theorem extends each prescription to a complete one-type of the complete theory of the integer ring. Different subsets give incompatible partial types. The countable first-order language supplies the matching upper bound.

The contrapositive of a logical implication $A\to B$ reverses the direction and applies logical negation to both sides: $\neg B\to \neg A$. In classical propositional logic they are equivalent, so either can be proved in place of the other. The contrapositive of “divisibility by four implies being an even number” says that a number that is not an even number cannot be divisible by four.

In Intuitionistic propositional logic, $A\to B$ still implies its contrapositive: assumptions $A$ and $\neg B$ would yield $B$ and hence a contradiction. The reverse direction is not generally valid. From $\neg B\to \neg A$ and $A$, one obtains only $\neg \neg B$; obtaining $B$ additionally requires double-negation elimination.

The converse implication of $A\to B$ is $B\to A$. It exchanges hypothesis and conclusion without logical negation. It need not follow from the original logical implication: $n=2$ is an even number but is not divisible by four. Thus “being an even number implies divisibility by four” is false, although the original implication holds for all natural numbers. Proving both directions establishes an “if and only if” statement; proving a contrapositive establishes the original implication classically, without establishing its converse implication.

Two integers $a,b$ are coprime when their greatest common divisor is one:For positive integers, this says that the only positive common divisor is one. For signed integers, use $\gcd (a,b)=\gcd (|a|,|b|)$, with absolute values; changing either sign leaves coprimality unchanged. With the convention $\gcd (0,0)=0$, zero is coprime precisely to $1,-1$, because $\gcd (a,0)=|a|$. Both $1,-1$ are coprime to every integer. ^[ref]

The word concerns shared prime factors, not whether either input is a prime number. For instance $8=2^3$ and $9=3^2$ are coprime composite numbers, even though neither is a square-free integer. Conversely, $6=2\cdot 3$ and $10=2\cdot 5$ are square-free integers but are not coprime. Consecutive integers are always coprime: any common divisor of $n,n+1$ divides their difference one. Thus $14,15$ provide another pair of coprime composite numbers.

For positive integers, let $P(n)$ be the prime support of an integer. The equivalent test isThe set intersection of the two prime supports of an integer must be the empty set. Indeed, any positive common divisor greater than one has a prime factor, and any shared prime factor is a common divisor greater than one. Hence coprimality depends on which prime factors occur, rather than on their prime valuations; replacing either input by its radical of an integer preserves coprimality.

For a list of at least two integers, distinguish pairwise coprimality, requiring every pair to be coprime, from joint coprimality, requiring only the greatest common divisor of the entire list to be one. For example,No prime factor belongs to all three prime supports of an integer, yet each pair shares one. By contrast, $4,9,25$ have pairwise coprimality. The distinction is presented by Poritz under the names pairwise and mutually relatively prime. ^[ref]

One use is simplifying fractions. For a fraction $a/b$ with integer entries and $b>0$, divide its numerator and denominator by $d=\gcd (a,b)$ to obtain a reduced fraction with coprime entries. For example, $42/30=7/5$ since $d=6$, and $-42/30=-7/5$ uses the same $d$. A further common divisor would make $d$ too small, so the reduction is complete. In particular, the reduced fraction for zero is $0/1$.

Another use is reversible modular arithmetic: for an integer modulus $m>1$, an integer $a$ has a modular inverse precisely when $a,m$ are coprime. The proof outline uses Bézout's identity: $ua+vm=1$ makes $u$ a modular inverse, and any inverse relation $ua-km=1$ forces every common divisor to divide one. For example, $3\cdot 5-2\cdot 7=1$ gives $5^{-1}\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}7)$, whereas $6$ has no modular inverse modulo $10$. Thus coprimality is the exact condition allowing division by a residue in modular arithmetic. ^[ref]

For an integer $n>1$, define $C(n)=(n-\phi (n))/(n-1)$, the complementary proportion to the resilience of a denominator. For composite numbers, asking when this is a unit fraction is equivalent to the divisibility condition $n-\phi (n)\mid n-1$.

For a nonnegative integer with decimal expansion $a={\sum }_i{a}_{i}10^i$, the congruence $10\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}d)$ gives $a\equiv {\sum }_i{a}_i(\mathrm{mod}d)$ whenever $d\mid 9$. Thus divisibility by three or nine is equivalent to divisibility of the sum of its decimal digits by the same number. More generally a base-$b$ expansion has the analogous rule for every divisor of $b-1$. This follows by repeated addition and multiplication in modular arithmetic; it does not require an empirical rule about decimal notation.

For integers $d,n$, $d$ divides $n$ when multiplication by some integer $k$ takes $d$ to $n$:Then $d$ is a divisor of $n$, and $n$ is an integer multiple of $d$. The notation $d\nmid n$ means that no such integer $k$ exists. For $d\ne 0$, this is equivalent to saying that the quotient $n/d$ is an integer, or that Euclidean division by $|d|$ leaves remainder zero.

For example, $3\mid 12$ because $12=3\cdot 4$, whereas $5\nmid 12$ because $12=5\cdot 2+2$. Signs do not change divisibility: $-3\mid 12$ because $12=(-3)(-4)$, and $3\mid -12$ because $-12=3(-4)$. In general, changing the sign of either input preserves the relation.

The definition here permits zero as either input. Every integer divides zero, since $0=d\cdot 0$. In particular, $0\mid 0$; however, $0\nmid n$ whenever $n\ne 0$, since $0k$ is always zero. This is a statement about multiplication, and assigns no meaning to division by zero: $0/0$ remains undefined.

Two useful properties come directly from the defining multiplication. Divisibility is a reflexive relation, since $n=n\cdot 1$, and a transitive relation: if $b=ar$ and $c=bs$, then $c=a(rs)$. Moreover, a shared divisor divides every integer linear combination:Indeed, writing $a=du$ and $b=dv$ gives $ax+by=d(ux+vy)$. For example, $6\mid 12$ and $6\mid 18$ imply $6\mid (18-12)$. This small observation explains why the Euclidean algorithm preserves common divisors, and why Bézout's identity can certify a greatest common divisor.

On the positive integers, divisibility is a partial order: if $a\mid b$ and $b\mid a$, then $a=b$. The restriction matters, since $3\mid -3$ and $-3\mid 3$ although $3\ne -3$. The prime factorization viewpoint makes this order concrete: $d\mid n$ exactly when every prime valuation of $d$ is at most the corresponding prime valuation of $n$. Thus one relation connects equal grouping, prime factorization, and modular arithmetic.

Book VII, definitions 3 and 5 of Euclid's Elements describe the corresponding positive-number relation through one number measuring another and through integer multiples. The sign and zero conventions above belong to the present integer formulation, rather than to those ancient definitions. ^[ref]

A divisor of an integer $n$ is an integer $d$ satisfying the divisibility relation $d\mid n$. Equivalently, $n=dk$ for some integer $k$. The word positive matters when listing or counting divisors: unless signs are restricted, both $d$ and $-d$ qualify.

The positive divisors of $12$ areTheir negatives are also divisors of $12$, giving twelve integer divisors altogether. The same list of positive divisors works for $-12$. One has only the positive divisor $1$, while zero has every integer as a divisor, including zero under our divisibility convention. A nonzero integer never has zero as a divisor.

For a positive integer $n$, the positive divisors come in pairs $(d,n/d)$ whose product is $n$. For $12$, the pairs are $(1,12)$, $(2,6)$ and $(3,4)$. Each pair contains a divisor at most $\sqrt{n}$, so searching through candidate divisors up to the square root suffices to find all pairs. A pair repeats its own member only when $n$ is a perfect square; for $36$, the middle pair is $(6,6)$. Consequently a positive integer has an odd number of positive divisors exactly when it is a perfect square.

The prime factorization gives another complete description. Since $12=2^2\cdot 3$, its positive divisors are precisely $2^i{3}^j$ with $0\le i\le 2$ and $0\le j\le 1$. These independent choices give $(2+1)(1+1)=6$ positive divisors, the value of the divisor function $\tau (12)$. A prime factor is one particular kind of divisor; $4$, $6$ and $12$ show that divisors need not be prime numbers.

Thinking in pairs connects exact grouping with integer factorization: twelve objects can form three groups of four or four groups of three. Thinking in shared divisors gives the greatest common divisor; for $12$ and $18$, the positive common divisors are $1,2,3,6$, and the largest is $6$.

The divisor function $\tau (n)={\sum }_{d\mid n}1$ counts the positive integer divisors of a positive integer $n$. In particular $\tau (1)=1$, because $1$ has just one positive integer divisor. More generally the notation ${\sigma }_k(n)={\sum }_{d\mid n}{d}^k$ gives $\tau ={\sigma }_0$ and the sum-of-divisors function ${\sigma }_1$. Thus the divisor function counts the positive integer divisors, while ${\sigma }_1$ adds their sizes. ^[ref]

If the prime factorization is $n={\prod }_{k=1}^r{p}_k^{a_k}$ with distinct prime numbers $p_k$ and positive exponents $a_k$, thenThe short proof is a count: each positive integer divisor has a unique form ${\prod }_{k=1}^r{p}_k^{b_k}$, where $0\le b_k\le a_k$. There are $a_k+1$ choices at each prime number, and choosing them gives every positive integer divisor exactly once. For $n=1$ there are no prime factors and the product is $1$.

For $12=2^2\cdot 3$, choose $i\in \{0,1,2\}$ and $j\in \{0,1\}$ to obtain $2^i{3}^j$. The six values are $1,2,4,3,6,12$; sorted, the positive integer divisors are $1,2,3,4,6,12$. Therefore $\tau (12)=(2+1)(1+1)=6$. The diagram makes the independent exponent choices visible.

This count is useful because a known prime factorization gives $\tau (n)$ without testing every smaller positive integer for divisibility. It also proves the divisor function is a multiplicative function: coprime integers have disjoint prime factors, so their exponent choices combine. For example $\tau (6)=4=\tau (2)\tau (3)$, but $\tau (4)=3\ne 4=\tau (2{)}^2$, so it is not a completely multiplicative function. Equivalently, $\tau =1\ast 1$ under Dirichlet convolution, counting ordered pairs of positive integers whose product is $n$.

An equivalence relation says which set elements should count as the same for a particular purpose. In modular arithmetic, for example, distinct integers with the same remainder are equivalent. The relation gathers interchangeable set elements into equivalence classes; the quotient set then treats each whole equivalence class as one object.

Formally, an equivalence relation on a set $X$ is a binary relation $R\subseteq X\times X$, written $x\sim y$, satisfying three conditions for all $x,y,z\in X$:These conditions make the equivalence classes a partition of a set: each set element belongs to exactly one class. ^[ref]

For a worked example, take the finite set $X=\{0,1,\dots ,8\}$ and restrict integer congruence modulo three to $X$:Reflexivity follows because $x-x=0$. The symmetric relation property follows by changing the sign of a difference, and transitivity follows by adding $x-y$ and $y-z$: divisibility by three is preserved in both steps. Thus $0\sim 3$ and $3\sim 6$ force $0\sim 6$. The three equivalence classes are $\{0,3,6\}$, $\{1,4,7\}$ and $\{2,5,8\}$. Their members alternate along the number line; membership in an equivalence class need not mean being close together.

The transitivity requirement rules out a tempting alternative. On $\{0,1,2\}$, define nearness by the absolute value condition $|x-y|\le 1$. This binary relation is reflexive and symmetric, but $0$ is near $1$ and $1$ is near $2$ while $0$ is not near $2$. Its neighborhoods $\{0,1\}$, $\{0,1,2\}$ and $\{1,2\}$ overlap without being equal. They are not equivalence classes or a partition of a set.

If a prime number $p$ divides a product $ab$ of integers $a,b$, then $p$ divides $a$ or $b$ (possibly both):For example, $5\mid 6\cdot 10$ and $5\mid 10$. The hypothesis that $p$ is a prime number matters: $6\mid 2\cdot 3$, although six divides neither factor. When $p$ does not divide $a$, the greatest common divisor of $p$ and $a$ is one; multiply Bézout's identity $up+va=1$ by $b$ to see that $p\mid b$. Repeated application makes this the uniqueness step in the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. ^[ref].

For a completely computed example, $7\mid 20\cdot 21$ because $20\cdot 21=420=7\cdot 60$, while $20=7\cdot 2+6$ shows that seven does not divide twenty. Bézout's identity $3\cdot 7-20=1$ becomes, after multiplication by $21$,The two terms on the right are divisible by seven, which explicitly recovers the forced divisibility of the second factor. Both alternatives can hold: $7\mid 14\cdot 21$, and seven divides both $14$ and $21$.

In fact the property characterizes prime numbers among the integers greater than one. If $c$ is a composite number, choose $c=ab$ with $1<a,b<c$; then $c\mid ab$, but $c$ divides neither $a$ nor $b$. For several factors, repeated application of Euclid's lemma says that a prime number dividing their product divides at least one factor. In a product of prime numbers, that factor must equal it, because a prime number has no other prime factor. This is what prevents a different collection of prime factors from representing the same positive integer in the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

Book VII, Proposition 30 of Euclid's Elements states the result in terms of a prime number measuring a product; its proof uses coprimality and ratios. The calculation using Bézout's identity above is a modern way to explain the same divisibility statement. ^[ref]

The extended Euclidean algorithm also computes integers $x,y$ satisfying $ax+by=\gcd (a,b)$, as in Bézout's identity. Back-substitution in the calculation under the Euclidean algorithm givesThus $(x,y)=(4,-5)$ solves $252x+198y=18$. The linear Diophantine equation $252x+198y=c$ is solvable exactly when $18$ divides $c$: necessity follows from common divisibility, and multiplying this identity proves sufficiency. For coprime integers $a,b$, the coefficient of $a$ is a modular inverse of $a$ modulo $b$, and the coefficient of $b$ is a modular inverse of $b$ modulo $a$, when the respective modulus is greater than one.

For a prime number $p$ and an integer $a$ not divisible by $p$, Fermat's little theorem states the modular congruenceEquivalently, for every integer $a$, including $a<0$ and multiples of $p$,The first formulation follows from the second by multiplying by a modular multiplicative inverse of $a$. Conversely, multiply the first by $a$ when $p\nmid a$; when $p\mid a$, both sides of the second are zero modulo $p$. The divisibility condition in the first formulation is essential.^[ref]

For $p=7$, $3^6=729=7\cdot 104+1$, so $3^6\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}7)$ and $3^7\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}7)$. Also $(-2{)}^6=64\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}7)$, while $7^6\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}7)$: a zero residue class cannot satisfy the first formulation. It does satisfy $7^7\equiv 7\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}7)$. A failure at a zero residue class therefore says nothing against a candidate's being a prime number.

The prime number $p=2$ is included. Its only nonzero residue class is one: every odd integer $a$ satisfies $a^{2-1}=a\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}2)$. Every integer also satisfies $a^2\equiv a(\mathrm{mod}2)$, because $a(a-1)$ is even. Testing the first formulation with an even integer would violate its hypothesis.

The useful surprise is that every nonzero residue class returns to one at the same exponent $p-1$, although its shortest return can be earlier. This gives exponent reduction for units: for a nonnegative integer $k$, $a^k\equiv a^{k\mathrm{mod}(p-1)}(\mathrm{mod}p)$ when $p\nmid a$. It also computes a modular multiplicative inverse as $a^{p-2}$ modulo $p$, including $p=2$. Repeated squaring makes these modular exponentiations practical.

In group theory, the nonzero residue classes form the multiplicative group of integers modulo n with $n=p$, of group order $p-1$. Lagrange's theorem says that the multiplicative order of $a$ divides $p-1$, giving the guaranteed return. Euler's theorem extends this to a general integer modulus $n$, using the units and Euler's totient function $\phi (n)$; the Carmichael function gives the least common return exponent for all units. A nonzero residue class modulo a composite number need not be a unit.

Leonhard Euler's paper presented in 1732 and published in 1738 states a historical formulation: Theorem 1 says that powers with exponent $n-1$ leave zero or one upon division by a prime number $n$. The preceding discussion states the difference-of-powers version and explicitly says that he does not have its proof.^[ref]

A Fermat number is the positive integer $F_n=2^{2^n}+1$, indexed by a nonnegative integer $n$. The first five are $3,5,17,257,65537$, all prime numbers; the next is the composite number $F_5=4294967297=641\cdot 6700417$. This family offers a compact lesson in number theory: a very persuasive finite pattern can fail, while an exact divisibility relation settles a gigantic case with little computation.

Why does the exponent itself have the form $2^n$? Suppose $m=ab$ is a positive integer with an odd integer factor $b>1$. The polynomial factorization $x^b+1=(x+1)(x^{b-1}-x^{b-2}+\cdots -x+1)$ shows that $2^a+1$ is a proper divisor of $2^m+1$. Consequently, if $2^m+1$ is a prime number, $m$ must be a power of two. That is a necessary condition, rather than a promise that the surviving candidates are prime.

The Fermat number product identity makes distinct Fermat numbers coprime integers. Thus every term has a prime factor absent from all earlier terms, whether or not that term is itself a prime number. This gives an explicit route to infinitely many different prime numbers, without establishing that infinitely many terms of this particular sequence are prime. Meanwhile the prime divisor of a Fermat number criterion filters possible factors through a small multiplicative order calculation.

The family also links arithmetic to Euclidean geometry: a constructible regular polygon can have a number of sides equal to a power of two times a product of distinct Fermat primes. The Gauss-Wantzel theorem gives the precise criterion. For instance, $15=3\cdot 5$ and $17$ qualify, but $9=3^2$ does not. The word "distinct" matters. Carl Pomerance describes this connection in Primality testing: then and now by Carl Pomerance (slide 18).

Historically, Leonhard Euler records Pierre de Fermat's proposed primality pattern, then refutes it by finding the factor $641$ of $F_5$. His paper was presented in 1732 and published in 1738; those are different events, not competing dates for one publication.^[ref]

A short modern check needs only two representations of $641$:In modular arithmetic these give $5^4{2}^{28}\equiv 1$ and $5^4\equiv -2^4(\mathrm{mod}641)$. Substitution yields $2^{32}\equiv -1(\mathrm{mod}641)$, so $641\mid F_5$. This verifies the factor directly; it does not claim to reconstruct Euler's search process.

For a finite field extension $L/K$, multiplication by $\alpha \in L$ is a $K$-linear map $m_{\alpha }:L\to L$. Its determinant is the field norm:This does not depend on the chosen basis. If $L/K$ is a separable field extension, thenwhere the product runs over all $[L:K]$ field embeddings into an algebraic closure of $K$. Embeddings are counted even when several give the same value on $\alpha$: for $r\in K$, the result is $r^{[L:K]}$. This avoids ambiguity in the phrase “product of algebraic conjugates”.^[ref]

For $L=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ over $K=\mathbb{Q}$, write $\alpha =a+b\sqrt{2}$. In the basis $1,\sqrt{2}$, multiplication by $\alpha$ has columns $(a,b)$ and $(2b,a)$, henceThe determinant calculation and the product of the two field embeddings give the same answer. In particular,A field norm is an arithmetic invariant; it is not a nonnegative norm measuring length, and need not be positive on nonzero elements.

The field norm is multiplicative, $N(\alpha \beta )=N(\alpha )N(\beta )$, because $m_{\alpha \beta }=m_{\alpha }{m}_{\beta }$ and determinants are multiplicative. It vanishes exactly at zero. For a number field over $\mathbb{Q}$, it takes algebraic integers to integers, and an algebraic integer is a unit exactly when its field norm is $1$ or $-1$.^[ref][ref]

This makes the field norm a useful test for divisibility. If nonzero $\alpha ,\beta \in {\mathcal{O}}_L$ and $\alpha$ divides $\beta$, then the integer $N(\alpha )$ divides $N(\beta )$. For example, $3+\sqrt{2}$ has field norm $7$, so it cannot divide $2$, whose field norm is $4$. It does divide $7$, with quotient $3-\sqrt{2}$. This necessary condition can reject a proposed factor without solving for its quotient.

A finite-state machine processes inputs using a finite set of automaton states and input-dependent automaton transitions. An automaton state records everything the machine remembers; an automaton transition says how that memory changes on the next symbol. A finite-state machine may also emit outputs. Here the emphasis is on recognizing a formal language: start in a designated automaton state, read a word from an alphabet, and accept exactly when the final automaton state is designated accepting.

Finite memory does not impose a maximum input length. A finite-state machine can read arbitrarily long words, revisiting its automaton states indefinitely. The restriction is that the part already read must be compressed into one of finitely many summaries. For divisibility by three, a word of binary digits can describe an enormous integer, yet its congruence class modulo three is all that the machine needs to retain. Two already-read words giving the same automaton state behave identically under every subsequent continuation in a DFA.

This makes finite-state machines useful whenever past details can be forgotten safely: checking whether a sequence of commands follows an allowed order, or recognizing a pattern with a regular expression. The beautiful design question is which distinctions about the past matter to the future. DFA minimization makes that question precise by merging indistinguishable states of a deterministic finite automaton. Both DFAs and NFAs recognize exactly the regular languages.