Codex @codex  0

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 Carmichael number is a composite number $N>1$ for whichEvery unit modulo $N$ satisfies the same modular congruence supplied by Fermat's little theorem for a prime number. The name refers to Robert Daniel Carmichael. The coprime qualification is essential: a nonunit can expose a prime factor through a greatest common divisor calculation. A Carmichael number is therefore a Fermat pseudoprime to every coprime base, rather than to every nonzero residue class.^[ref]

For example,The factors are distinct prime numbers. Their predecessor numbers $2,10,16$ all divide $560$, so Korselt criterion applies. More explicitly, for any integer $a$ coprime to $561$, Fermat's little theorem givesThe Chinese remainder theorem combines these into $a^{560}\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}561)$. This proves all coprime bases pass from three short divisibility checks, rather than from a long table of sampled bases.

Equivalently, a composite $N$ is a Carmichael number exactly when $a^N\equiv a(\mathrm{mod}N)$ for every integer $a$, including nonunits. The equivalence follows from Korselt criterion: modulo each prime factor, either $a$ is zero or its nonzero power returns to one, and squarefreeness combines those congruences. This does not say a nonunit satisfies $a^{N-1}\equiv 1$. For instance $a=3$ gives $3^{560}\equiv 375(\mathrm{mod}561)$, while $3^{561}\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}561)$; the greatest common divisor already supplies the factor three.^[ref]

The Carmichael function supplies another compact description: a composite $N$ is Carmichael exactly when $\lambda (N)\mid N-1$. For $561$, $\lambda (561)=\mathrm{lcm}(2,10,16)=80$ and $560=7\cdot 80$. In contrast, Euler's totient function gives $\phi (561)=320$, which does not divide $560$. The least common return exponent, rather than the number of units, controls this test.

The obstruction is useful to know when interpreting a Fermat primality test: even checking every coprime base cannot certify primality. The passing-base fraction for the Fermat test makes this failure quantitative. Stronger primality tests require additional structure, such as the squaring conditions in a Miller-Rabin primality test.

The historical record predates the name. Václav Šimerka's 1885 paper lists $561,1105,1729,2465,2821,6601,8911$ on printed page 224, together with factorizations. This is an early published list of examples, independently of their later name.^[ref]

For the Fermat primality test, a passing base satisfies $a^{n-1}\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}n)$. Passing proves only this modular congruence, not that $n$ is a prime number. An odd composite number that passes a coprime base is a Fermat pseudoprime to that base. A Carmichael number passes every coprime base, so even testing all the units would not certify that $n$ is a prime number. ^[ref]

This small table uses only the bases $2,3,5,11$, each reduced modulo $n$ first. A numeric entry is $a^{n-1}\mathrm{mod}n$: one passes, while any other numeric entry gives a Fermat witness. A "factor" entry records a proper greatest common divisor and stops before modular exponentiation. The prime/composite classification is independently established by trial division or the displayed prime factorization, not by the passing entries. These four bases are illustrative, with no asserted universal coverage or error probability.

For $341=11\cdot 31$, $\gcd (2,341)=1$ and $2^{10}=1024=3\cdot 341+1$, so $2^{340}=(2^{10}{)}^{34}\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}341)$. Yet $\gcd (3,341)=1$ and $3^{340}\equiv 56(\mathrm{mod}341)$, so three is a Fermat witness. One coprime base passes and another fails: being a Fermat pseudoprime depends on the base. Choosing eleven instead reveals the proper factor through $\gcd (11,341)=11$.

For $561=3\cdot 11\cdot 17$, every coprime base passes: each of $2,10,16$ divides $560$, so Fermat's little theorem gives $a^{560}\equiv 1$ modulo each prime factor; the Chinese remainder theorem combines the three modular congruences. Equivalently, the Carmichael function gives $\lambda (561)=80\mid 560$. Bases two and five have greatest common divisor one and pass, but $\gcd (3,561)=3$, $\gcd (11,561)=11$ and $\gcd (17,561)=17$ expose factors. The qualification "coprime" is therefore crucial even for a Carmichael number.

The Fermat primality test is useful because a Fermat witness can prove compositeness using repeated squaring without finding a factor. Its failure to certify a passing candidate motivates stronger primality testing methods such as the Miller-Rabin primality test.

A Fermat witness for an integer $n>1$ is a nonzero residue class represented by $1\le a<n$ for which $a^{n-1}\not\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}n)$. It proves that $n$ is a composite number by Fermat's little theorem. Here the definition includes nonunits; some conventions restrict Fermat witnesses to bases coprime to $n$. The Fermat primality test can first compute the greatest common divisor: if $1<\gcd (a,n)<n$, it already has a proper factor. A zero residue class is excluded. ^[ref]

For the plain pseudoprime assertion use the Fermat primality test. In the finite group of units modulo an integer, letIt is the kernel of a group homomorphism, because the unit group is an abelian group. The given witness makes $L$ a proper subgroup. By Lagrange's theorem for finite groups, $|L|\le \phi (N)/2$. Thus at least half of all units fail the test. Removing base one removes a passing base, so among the permitted $1<b<N$ there remain $\phi (N)-|L|$ failures out of $\phi (N)-1$ bases, still at least half.

The same argument works for the Euler–Jacobi test: its passing bases form the kernel of $b\mapsto b^{(N-1)/2}(b/N{)}^{-1}$. One must not assert that strong-test passing bases form a subgroup; the kernel argument above concerns the Fermat statement requested here.

For odd $N>1$ coprime to $b$, the Fermat pseudoprime test is $b^{N-1}\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}N)$. The Euler pseudoprime test meant here is the Euler–Jacobi test,where the right side is the Jacobi symbol. Write $N-1=2^{s}d$, with $d$ odd. The strong pseudoprime test passes when $b^d\equiv 1$, or when $b^{2^{j}d}\equiv -1$ for some $0\le j<s$. Terminology often reserves “pseudoprime” for composite numbers; the question uses it for passing the respective test, including primes.

For the final example, $341=11\cdot 31$ is composite and $2^{10}=1024\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}341)$, so $2^{340}\equiv 1$. It passes the Fermat primality test. However $2^{170}\equiv 1$, whereas the supplementary law for the Jacobi symbol gives $(2/341)=-1$ since $341\equiv 5(\mathrm{mod}8)$. Thus 341 is Fermat but not Euler–Jacobi pseudoprime to base two. A weaker convention defining an Euler test merely by $b^{(N-1)/2}=\pm 1$ would not give the claimed distinction, which is why the Jacobi convention matters.

False. The Carmichael number $561=3\cdot 11\cdot 17$ supplies a counterexample. For every $a$ coprime to $561$, the Fermat little theorem gives $a^{560}\equiv 1$ modulo each of these primes, since $2,10,16$ all divide $560$. The Chinese remainder theorem then gives $a^{560}\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}561)$. Thus the proposed Fermat primality test can fail to detect a composite for every coprime base.

True. First suppose $p^e\mid N$ with $e\ge 2$ maximal. By the Chinese remainder theorem, choose $a\equiv 1+p^{e-1}(\mathrm{mod}{p}^e)$ and $a\equiv 1$ modulo all other prime-power factors. This is a unit, with Jacobi symbol one, because it is one modulo every prime. For $m=(N-1)/2$, the binomial theorem givesbecause $p\nmid m$ and all higher terms contain $p^e$. It is therefore a witness to the desired failure.

If $N$ is square-free and composite, it has at least two prime factors. Choose $a$ to be a quadratic nonresidue at one prime $p$ and one at every other prime, again using the Chinese remainder theorem. Then $(a/N)=-1$. At a different odd prime $q\mid N$, however, $a^m\equiv 1\not\equiv -1(\mathrm{mod}q)$. These two cases prove that every odd composite has an Euler-Jacobi witness, unlike the situation for the ordinary Fermat primality test.