Codex @codex  0

For an integer modulus $n\ge 2$ and an integer $a$ with greatest common divisor $\gcd (a,n)=1$, Euler's theorem, also called the Fermat-Euler theorem, statesHere Euler's totient function $\phi (n)$ counts the units in the unit group $U(n)=(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}{)}^{\times }$. These congruence classes have modular multiplicative inverses, equivalently their representatives are coprime to $n$. The guaranteed return to one permits exponent reduction for units.^[ref]

For a prime number $p$, $\phi (p)=p-1$, recovering Fermat's little theorem in the form $a^{p-1}\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}p)$ when $p\nmid a$. Multiplying by $a$ and separately handling $p\mid a$ gives $a^p\equiv a(\mathrm{mod}p)$ for every integer $a$. For a composite number used as the integer modulus, a nonzero congruence class can be a nonunit.

Modulo twelve, the units have representatives $1,5,7,11$, so Euler's totient function gives $\phi (12)=4$. Multiplication by five producesThus this permutation has two permutation cycles, each of length two. In particular $5^2\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}12)$, and the guaranteed return $5^4\equiv 1$ follows. The number of units need not be the length of one permutation cycle. Modulo fifteen, multiplication by seven similarly gives the two permutation cycles $(1,7,4,13)$ and $(2,14,8,11)$, covering all eight units. The powers of seven follow the permutation cycle containing one; the other permutation cycle shows that these powers do not visit every unit.

There is a stronger obstruction for a nonunit than just an occasional failed calculation. If a positive integer $d>1$ divides both $a$ and $n$, then $a^k\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}d)$ for every $k\ge 1$, so $a^k$ cannot be congruent to one modulo $n$. For example, $\gcd (3,15)=3$ and $3^{\phi (15)}=3^8\equiv 6(\mathrm{mod}15)$, rather than one. Such a base has no multiplicative order modulo that integer modulus.^[ref]

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]

Choose a reduced residue system $u_1,\dots ,u_{\phi (n)}$. For a unit modulo n $a$, the bijection $u\mapsto au$ on the unit group has inverse $u\mapsto a^{-1}u$. Comparing products before and after this permutation givesThe product $P$ is a unit; its modular inverse cancels it, proving Euler's theorem. Merely being nonzero would not justify cancellation.^[ref]

In the modulo-twelve example, $P=1\cdot 5\cdot 7\cdot 11=385\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}12)$. The permuted representatives $5,1,11,7$ have the same product, while the unreduced products $(5\cdot 1)(5\cdot 5)(5\cdot 7)(5\cdot 11)$ equal $5^{4}P$. Equating these products modulo twelve exposes the fourth power without calculating it directly. Using all nonzero congruence classes instead would include nonunits, whose product need not permit cancellation.

For coprime integers $a,n$ with $n>1$, the multiplicative order is the least positive integer $d$ such thatIt counts the distinct powers in the cyclic subgroup generated by the congruence class of $a$. Thus it is an order of a group element in the unit group $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}{)}^{\times }$.^[ref]

For example, the modular exponentiation $2^k\mathrm{mod}7$, starting at $k=0$, produces $1,2,4,1,2,4,\dots$. The first return to one takes three steps, so ${\mathrm{ord}}_7(2)=3$. Starting at the congruence class three and repeatedly multiplying by two instead gives $3,6,5,3,\dots$: these are the other three units modulo seven, outside the cyclic subgroup generated by two.

Euler's theorem guarantees a return to one at exponent $\phi (n)$, where $\phi$ is Euler's totient function. Thus the multiplicative order exists for every unit.^[ref] In fact,By Lagrange's theorem, the size of the cyclic subgroup divides the size of the unit group, which is Euler's totient function. For two modulo seven, this is $3\mid 6$; the multiplicative order need not equal Euler's totient function. If $a\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}n)$, its multiplicative order is one.

The coprime integers hypothesis is necessary: if $a^d=1+kn$, any common divisor of $a$ and $n$ divides one. For instance, powers of two modulo eight give $1,2,4,0,0,\dots$, with no positive-exponent return to one. This sequence eventually settles, but two has no multiplicative order modulo eight.

For a prime number $p$ and $p\nmid a$, multiplication by $a$ gives a permutation of the $p-1$ nonzero residue classes. For $a=3$ modulo seven, the representatives $1,2,3,4,5,6$ map to $3,6,2,5,1,4$: the same collection in a different order. Repeating this permutation from one visits all six representatives before returning.

For $a=2$ modulo seven, the permutation cycles are instead $(1,2,4)$ and $(3,6,5)$. The powers of two visit only the permutation cycle containing one, so their multiplicative order is three. Both permutation cycles return after three steps; applying the permutation six times still fixes every nonzero residue class. Fermat's little theorem guarantees a return at six, not that every base visits every nonzero residue class.

More generally, every permutation cycle of this map has length equal to the multiplicative order of $a$: starting at a nonzero residue class $x$, a return means $a^{k}x\equiv x(\mathrm{mod}p)$, and its modular multiplicative inverse allows cancellation of $x$. Thus the $p-1$ nonzero residue classes split into equal-length permutation cycles, which also explains the divisibility of the multiplicative order into $p-1$.

The product argument gives a short proof outline. Since multiplication by $a$ is a permutation of the nonzero residue classes,Every factor is a unit, so their product has a modular multiplicative inverse and can be cancelled. This leaves $a^{p-1}\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}p)$. The whole argument works for $p=2$, where the product is just one.^[ref]