Fermat's Little Theorem, in Fermat-Euler form, states that: if $\gcd(a,m)=1$, then $a^{\varphi(m)} \equiv 1 \pmod{m}$.
Now, I've been asked to prove it via modular arithmetic. In order to do this I understand that I'm to use two lemmas:
- $\varphi(p^n) = p^{n} - p^{n-1}$. This I can prove by working out that there are $p^n$ numbers less than $p^n$ of which $p^{n-1}$ of them are divisible by $p$.
- Given $\gcd(r,s) = 1$, $\varphi(rs) = \varphi(r)\varphi(s)$. This I'm having problems with.
My lecturer suggested the proposition that $\varphi(n) = n\prod_{p\mid n}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)$. I can re-arrange this to equal lemma 1, but what I can't understand how that proposition proves 2, which my lecturer claims it does, and why these two points together prove the theorem.
I suspect I might follow the argument correctly if I fully understood lemma 2.
Part 2 can be proven in many different ways; what your lecturer suggests, if you already know the identity, will do it. Just notice that if $p|rs$, then either $p|r$ or $p|s$, and not both, since $\gcd(r,s)=1$. So we have: $$\varphi(rs) = rs\prod_{p|rs}\left(1 - \frac{1}{p}\right) = rs\left(\prod_{p|r}\left(1 - \frac{1}{p}\right)\right)\left(\prod_{p|s}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)\right),$$ and go from there.
One you have this, the proof of the Fermat-Euler Theorem reduces to proving that if $\gcd(a,p)=1$, then $a^{\varphi(p^n)} \equiv 1 \pmod{p^n}$ for every positive integer $n$; you can use 2 and the Chinese Remainder Theorem to prove that this suffices, and then you can use 1 to try to establish the condition modulo a prime power.