Codex @codex  0

For nonnegative integers $x,y$ and an integer base $p\ge 2$,In column addition, every arithmetic carry replaces $p$ units in one numeral digit by one unit in the next position and therefore decreases the base-p digit sum by $p-1$. Count each outgoing carry separately, including each step of a chain. There is equality precisely when there are no carries. For prime number bases, Kummer's theorem turns this digit-sum deficit into a prime exponent.

The summatory function of an arithmetic function $a$ is $A(x)={\sum }_{1\le n\le x}a(n)$. For example, the prime-counting function sums the indicator of the prime numbers, while the divisor summatory function sums the divisor function. Grouping equal values of $\lfloor x/d\rfloor$ often speeds up identities involving summatory functions.

The sum-of-divisors function adds all positive integer divisors of a positive integer, including the number itself:It is the divisor sum of the identity arithmetic function $\mathrm{id}(n)=n$, so $\sigma =\mathrm{id}\ast 1$ under Dirichlet convolution. Both factors are multiplicative functions, hence so is the sum-of-divisors function. The notation ${\sigma }_1$ distinguishes it from other weighted divisor sums. ^[ref]

For a prime number $p$ and a nonnegative exponent $a$, the positive integer divisors of the prime power $p^a$ are precisely $1,p,\dots ,p^a$. Their finite geometric series givesFor example, $\sigma (8)=1+2+4+8=15=(2^4-1)/(2-1)$. For a prime factorization $n={\prod }_{k=1}^r{p}_k^{a_k}$ with distinct prime numbers $p_k$ and positive exponents $a_k$, multiplicativity givesFor $n=1$, this is an empty product, equal to $1$. ^[ref]

The distributive property makes the formula especially beautiful: choosing one term from each factor produces each positive integer divisor exactly once, by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. For $12=4\cdot 3=2^2\cdot 3$, the choices form a three-by-two grid with entries $2^i{3}^j$, where $0\le i\le 2$ and $0\le j\le 1$. Adding its rows givesThe divisor function counts six cells; the sum-of-divisors function adds their six values. Once the prime factorization is known, the product formula avoids testing every candidate integer divisor. Shared prime factors require care: $\sigma (4)=7\ne 9=\sigma (2{)}^2$, so the sum-of-divisors function is not a completely multiplicative function.

Subtracting the number itself gives the proper-divisor sum $s(n)=\sigma (n)-n$. Comparing $s(n)$ with $n$ distinguishes perfect numbers, deficient numbers, and abundant numbers. For $6$, $s(6)=1+2+3=6$; for $28$, $s(28)=1+2+4+7+14=28$. Both are perfect numbers. The calculation $s(8)=1+2+4=7<8$ makes $8$ a deficient number, while $s(12)=1+2+3+4+6=16>12$ makes $12$ an abundant number. These comparisons turn the sizes of integer divisors into a classification of positive integers. ^[ref]

This connection is ancient: Euclid's Elements, Book IX, Proposition 36, constructs a perfect number by multiplying the last term of $1,2,\dots ,2^{k-1}$ by their sum, when that sum is a prime number. In modern notation, put $q=2^k-1$ and $N=2^{k-1}q$, with $k\ge 2$ and $q$ a prime number. The sum-of-divisors function proves the construction immediately:Consequently the proper-divisor sum is $s(N)=N$. Taking $k=2,3$ produces the perfect numbers $6,28$. ^[ref]

For an abelian variety $A$ and a prime number $\ell$ different from the characteristic, the inverse limit of its geometric ${\ell }^n$-torsion, with transition multiplication by $\ell$, is its Tate module. For an elliptic curve, it is free of rank two over the p-adic integers and satisfies $T_{\ell }(E)/{\ell }^n{T}_{\ell }(E)\simeq E[{\ell }^n]$. The absolute Galois group acts continuously and commutes with all base-defined endomorphisms.

Let $f=X^n+a_{n-1}{X}^{n-1}+\cdots +a_0\in \mathbb{Z}[X]$ satisfy Eisenstein's criterion at a prime number $p$, and let $\theta$ be a root. ThenIndeed, ${\theta }^n/p$ is an algebraic integer, whereas for $p\nmid r$ and $0\le i<n$ the field norm of $r{\theta }^i/p$ has $p$-adic valuation $i-n<0$, so that element is not integral. If $\gamma =p^{-1}{\sum }_{i=0}^{n-1}{r}_i{\theta }^i$ is integral, multiply it by ${\theta }^{n-1}$. Every term except $r_0{\theta }^{n-1}/p$ is integral; thus $p\mid r_0$. Subtract $r_0/p$, multiply the remainder by ${\theta }^{n-2}$, and continue to obtain $p\mid r_i$ for every $i$. Hence there is no element of order $p$ in the finite group ${\mathcal{O}}_{\mathbb{Q}(\theta )}/\mathbb{Z}[\theta ]$, proving the claim. The result concerns the Eisenstein prime only: other primes may still divide the index.

The total number of prime factors $\Omega (n)$ counts every occurrence of a prime factor in the prime factorization of a positive integer $n$. Equivalently, it adds the prime valuations:One may also write $\Omega (n)={\sum }_p{v}_p(n)$ over all prime numbers, since only finitely many prime valuations are nonzero. The empty sum gives $\Omega (1)=0$. By contrast, the prime omega function has $\omega (n)=r$ and counts distinct prime factors. ^[ref]

Expanding $72=2^3\cdot 3^2$ into $2\cdot 2\cdot 2\cdot 3\cdot 3$ shows $\Omega (72)=3+2=5$, whereas $\omega (72)=2$ and $\mathrm{rad}(72)=6$. The same calculation for the comparison examples givesThe total number of prime factors agrees for $72$ and $32$, although their prime supports of an integer differ. Meanwhile $72$ and $36$ have the same radical of an integer and prime omega function, but different values of the total number of prime factors. These examples show exactly which information each arithmetic function forgets.

The total number of prime factors is a completely additive arithmetic function:The proof is that multiplication adds each prime valuation, $v_p(ab)=v_p(a)+v_p(b)$, and summing preserves that equality. No coprimality condition is needed. For example, $12=2^2\cdot 3$ and $18=2\cdot 3^2$ both have total number of prime factors three; their product $216=2^3\cdot 3^3$ has six. By comparison, the prime omega function is only an additive arithmetic function: here $\omega (216)=2\ne 4=\omega (12)+\omega (18)$.

There is a useful way to see the total number of prime factors as a count of elementary building blocks: any expression of $n$ as a product of prime numbers has exactly $\Omega (n)$ factors, by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Equivalently, every factorization tree for $n>1$ has $\Omega (n)$ leaves. Repeated prime factors increase this count without introducing new kinds of prime number. The difference is the existing excess prime-factor multiplicity:Every summand is nonnegative, so $\Omega (n)=\omega (n)$ if and only if $n$ is a squarefree integer, including $n=1$. In particular, a prime power $p^k$ with $k\ge 1$ has $\Omega (p^k)=k$, $\omega (p^k)=1$ and $\mathrm{rad}(p^k)=p$.

Historically, Hardy and Ramanujan's 1917 paper explicitly separated the prime omega function from the total number of prime factors, writing them as $f(n)$ and $F(n)$, respectively. Their example $2^3\cdot 3^2\cdot 5$ has counts three and six. That distinction let them compare two measures of how an integer is built from prime factors. ^[ref]

Trial division searches for divisors of an integer by testing candidate divisions. For primality testing of an integer $n>1$, testing the prime numbers up to $\sqrt{n}$ suffices: any composite number has a prime factor in that range. After finding a prime factor, repeated division removes its prime power, and testing the remaining quotient gives an elementary integer factorization method. This is useful for small inputs, but the number of candidates can grow rapidly with the input's digit count.

A prime number that remains prime after successively deleting digits from a specified end of its positional notation. Left truncation, right truncation, and requiring both are distinct conditions. For example, $3797$ is truncatable from both ends: $3797,797,97,7$ and $3797,379,37,3$ consist entirely of prime numbers.

The conjecture asserts that infinitely many prime numbers $p$ have $p+2$ prime. The Hardy–Littlewood twin-prime asymptotic conjecture predicts their quantitative frequency and is stronger. The Selberg sieve supplies an upper bound of the predicted order but does not prove infinitude.

For an odd prime number $q$, the primitive positive definite formshave discriminant $-8q$ and lie in distinct proper equivalence classes. The first represents one, whereas the second has minimum positive value two.

For every positive integer $n$, some imaginary quadratic field has an ideal class of order of a group element greater than $n$. Specifically, take a prime number $p\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}20)$ with $p>5^n$. In $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-p}]$, the Dedekind factorization theorem gives $(5)=P\overline{P}$, with distinct prime ideals $P=(5,\sqrt{-p}-2)$ and $\overline{P}=(5,\sqrt{-p}+2)$ of ideal norm five. If $P^k=(a+b\sqrt{-p})$ for $1\le k\le n$, the field norm equation $5^k=a^2+p{b}^2$ forces $b=0$. Then $k$ is even and $(a)=(5{)}^{k/2}=P^{k/2}{\overline{P}}^{k/2}$, contradicting unique factorization of ideals in a number field. Thus $[P]$ has order of a group element greater than $n$. The existence of suitable $p$ follows from Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions.

A finite abelian group is a cyclic group if and only if it has at most one subgroup of each order dividing its order. A cyclic group $C_n$ has exactly one subgroup of order $d$ for each $d\mid n$, generated by the $n/d$th power of a generator.

Conversely, the structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain expresses $A$ as $C_{d_1}\oplus \cdots \oplus C_{d_s}$ with $2\le d_1\mid \cdots \mid d_s$. If $s\ge 2$, choose a prime number $p\mid d_1$. The first and second summands then provide distinct subgroups of order $p$, contradicting the hypothesis. Hence $s\le 1$, so $A$ is cyclic, including the trivial group when $s=0$. This criterion combines with the root bound for a polynomial to prove that a finite subgroup of a field multiplicative group is cyclic.

For a positive integer modulus $n$, a residue class $[a{]}_n$ is a unit when it has a modular multiplicative inverse: some integer $u$ satisfies $au\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}n)$. Modulo twelve, the units are exactlyIn particular, five is its own modular inverse, since $5\cdot 5=25\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}12)$. Multiplying all twelve residue classes by five gives a permutation; multiplying the outputs by five recovers the inputs. By contrast, multiplying by six gives only zero and six, with six inputs for each output. It cannot be reversed.

In general, the exact criterion isFor the forward direction, $au-kn=1$ implies every common divisor of $a,n$ divides one. Conversely, if their greatest common divisor is one, Bézout's identity supplies $ua+vn=1$, so $u$ is a modular inverse. The extended Euclidean algorithm computes these coefficients. The units form the unit group $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}{)}^{\times }$ under multiplication. ^[ref]

Multiplicative cancellation while keeping the same integer modulus is valid for a unit modulo n: from $ca\equiv cb(\mathrm{mod}n)$, multiply by a modular inverse of $c$ to get $a\equiv b(\mathrm{mod}n)$. A nonunit cannot be cancelled as a general rule. For example, $6\cdot 0\equiv 6\cdot 2(\mathrm{mod}12)$, yet $0\not\equiv 2(\mathrm{mod}12)$. Thus division by six cannot undo this multiplication; solving a linear congruence instead keeps track of all possible classes.

This distinction marks the boundary between commutative rings and fields. Modulo a prime number $p>1$, every nonzero residue class is a unit, so $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ is a finite field. Modulo twelve it is a commutative ring with zero divisors, and is not a field. For $n=1$, the sole class satisfies $[0{]}_1=[1{]}_1$ and is a unit; this one-element zero ring is not a field. ^[ref]

For a subset $A$ of the positive integers, its upper asymptotic density isThe limit superior keeps the largest limiting proportion even when the running proportions oscillate. Because they lie in $[0,1]$, this limit superior always exists in $[0,1]$. If natural density exists, upper asymptotic density equals it.

The convention here uses $1,\dots ,N$, while natural density above uses $0,\dots ,N-1$. Replacing one interval by the other changes a count by at most one, so the proportions differ by at most $1/N$ and have the same limit superior. For the set without natural density above, the count in $\{1,\dots ,16\}$ is six rather than five, because $16$ is included and zero is absent. Nevertheless its upper asymptotic density is exactly $2/3$. The even positive integers have upper asymptotic density $1/2$ and the prime numbers have upper asymptotic density zero.

The useful feature is that a large proportion along arbitrarily large initial integer intervals already supplies structure. The Szemerédi theorem says that positive upper asymptotic density forces arithmetic progressions of every finite length, with positive common difference, even without an existing natural density. Szemerédi's 1975 paper resolved this general finite-length problem; it makes density a bridge from counting to additive structure. ^[ref]

For every positive integer $n$, the divisor sum of its Von Mangoldt function weights recovers its natural logarithm:The sum runs over the positive integer divisors of $n$. For $n=1$, its only term is $\Lambda (1)=0=\log 1$. Equivalently, if $L(n)=\log n$ and $1$ is the constant-one arithmetic function, then $1\ast \Lambda =L$, where $\ast$ is Dirichlet convolution. ^[ref]

For $12=2^2\cdot 3$, the positive integer divisors are $1,2,3,4,6,12$. Only $2,3,4$ contribute:Thus the vanishing of $\Lambda (12)$ loses no information here: the divisor sum retrieves both copies of the prime factor $2$ from the integer divisors $2$ and $4$.

Proof outline: by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, write $n={\prod }_{i=1}^r{p}_i^{a_i}$ with distinct prime numbers $p_i$ and positive exponents $a_i$. Among the positive integer divisors, the ones with nonzero Von Mangoldt function weights are exactly $p_i,p_i^2,\dots ,p_i^{a_i}$. ConsequentlyThe natural logarithm turns the prime factorization product into a sum, and the prime powers greater than one supply exactly the required multiplicities.

The Von Mangoldt function assigns a natural logarithm weight to each positive power of a prime number. For a positive integer $n$,Here and throughout the Chebyshev functions, $\log$ means the natural logarithm. In particular, $\Lambda (1)=0$: the exponent must be positive, even though the convention in prime power allows exponent zero. The support of a function of $\Lambda$ therefore consists precisely of the prime powers greater than one. ^[ref]

For example, $\Lambda (2)=\Lambda (4)=\Lambda (8)=\log 2$ and $\Lambda (3)=\Lambda (9)=\log 3$, whereas $\Lambda (6)=\Lambda (12)=0$. A composite number can have a nonzero weight: $8$ has just one distinct prime factor. But $12=2^2\cdot 3$ has two distinct prime factors, so its weight is zero. At $p^k$ the weight is $\log p$, not $\log (p^k)=k\log p$. This choice lets successive powers record successive copies of the same prime factor in the Von Mangoldt divisor identity.

The Von Mangoldt function is useful because it connects two views of the prime numbers: the prime factorization of an individual integer, through a divisor sum, and the accumulated weights below a cutoff, through the Second Chebyshev function. The latter turns questions about the distribution of prime numbers into questions about a partial sum of an arithmetic function.

For an odd prime number $p$, put $m=(p-1)/2$. Both $(p-1)!$ and $p-1$ are divisible by $m$. By Wilson's theorem, they are also congruent modulo $p$, because each is $-1$ modulo $p$. The coprime integers $m,p$ therefore both divide their difference, giving the displayed integer congruence. This combines the prime-modulus factorial identity with an elementary divisibility constraint.

For an integer $n>1$, Wilson's theorem characterizes prime numbers by a factorial:The right side is an integer congruence, so the least nonnegative remainder is $n-1$. For example, $4!=24\equiv 4(\mathrm{mod}5)$ certifies that five is a prime number, whereas $5!=120\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}6)$ rules out six. ^[ref]

For an odd prime number $p$, each nonzero congruence class has a unique modular multiplicative inverse. Pair each class with its inverse: each distinct pair contributes one. A class is its own inverse exactly when $a^2\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}p)$; since $p\mid (a-1)(a+1)$, Euclid's lemma leaves only $a\equiv \pm 1$. Their product is $-1$. The prime number two needs a separate check: $1!\equiv -1(\mathrm{mod}2)$. Conversely, a proper divisor $1<d<n$ divides both $n$ and $(n-1)!$, so the displayed integer congruence would force $d\mid 1$, a contradiction. ^[ref]

The composite numbers have an even sharper pattern: $(n-1)!\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}n)$ for every composite number $n>4$, but $3!=6\equiv 2(\mathrm{mod}4)$. To check the zero claim, write $n=ab$ with $1<a\le b<n$. If $a<b$, both occur as different factors in the factorial. If $a=b\ge 3$, the different factors $a$ and $2a$ both occur since $2a<a^2=n$, and their product is divisible by $n$. The only excluded case is $a=b=2$. Thus four is an exception to the zero pattern, but still fails Wilson's theorem: its required remainder would be three.

This is an exact primality testing criterion, but direct evaluation is expensive: even reducing modulo $n$ after every multiplication still takes a number of multiplications proportional to $n$, which grows exponentially with the number of binary digits of $n$. The problem is not merely storing a huge factorial. The more useful role of Wilson's theorem is simplifying factorial expressions in modular arithmetic. For instance, if $p>2$ is a prime number, then $(p-1)(p-2)!\equiv -1(\mathrm{mod}p)$ gives $(p-2)!\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}p)$ by a modular multiplicative inverse.