MATH 324 Summer 2010

Elementary Number Theory

Notes on the Integers and Mathematical Induction

Properties of the Integers

The set of all integers is the set

Z = {· · · , −5, −4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, · · · },

and the subset of Z given by

N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, · · · },
is the set of nonnegative integers (also called the natural numbers or the counting numbers).
We assume that the notions of addition (+) and multiplication ( · ) of integers have been defined, and note
that Z with these two binary operations satisfy the following.

Axioms for Integers

• Closure Laws: if a, b ∈ Z, then

a+b∈Z and a · b ∈ Z.

• Commutative Laws: if a, b ∈ Z, then

a+b=b+a and a · b = b · a.

• Associative Laws: if a, b, c ∈ Z, then

(a + b) + c = a + (b + c) and (a · b) · c = a · (b · c).

• Distributive Law: if a, b, c ∈ Z, then

a · (b + c) = a · b + a · c and (a + b) · c = a · c + b · c.

• Identity Elements: There exist integers 0 and 1 in Z, with 1 6= 0, such that

a+0=0+a=a and a·1 = 1·a = a

for all a ∈ Z.
• Additive Inverse: For each a ∈ Z, there is an x ∈ Z such that

a + x = x + a = 0,

x is called the additive inverse of a or the negative of a, and is denoted by −a.

The set Z together with the operations of + and · satisfying these axioms is called a commutative ring
with identity.
We can now prove the following results concerning the integers.

Theorem. For any a ∈ Z, we have 0 · a = a · 0 = 0.

Proof. We start with the fact that 0 + 0 = 0. Multiplying by a, we have

a · (0 + 0) = a · 0

and from the distributive law we have,

a · 0 + a · 0 = a · 0.
If b = −(a · 0), then
(a · 0 + a · 0) + b = a · 0 + b = 0,
and from the associative law,
a · 0 + (a · 0 + b) = 0,
that is,
a · 0 + 0 = 0,
and finally,
a · 0 = 0.

Theorem. For any a ∈ Z, we have −a = (−1) · a.

Proof. Let a ∈ Z, then
0 = 0 · a = [1 + (−1)] · a = 1 · a + (−1) · a,
so that
−a + 0 = −a + (a + (−1) · a),
that is,
−a = (−a + a) + (−1) · a,
that is,
−a = 0 + (−1) · a,
and finally, −a = (−1) · a.

Theorem. (−1) · (−1) = 1.

Proof. We have
 
(−1) · (−1) + (−1) = (−1) · (−1) + (−1) · 1 = (−1) · (−1) + 1 = (−1) · 0 = 0,

so that  
(−1) · (−1) + (−1) + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1,
that is,  
(−1) · (−1) + (−1) + 1 = 1,
or,
(−1) · (−1) + 0 = 1.
Therefore, (−1) · (−1) = 1.
We can define an ordering on the set of integers Z using the set of positive integers N + = {1, 2, 3, · · · }.
Definition. If a, b ∈ Z, then we define a < b if and only if b − a ∈ N+ .
Note: By b − a we mean b + (−a), and if a < b we also write b > a. Also, we note that a is a positive integer
if and only if a > 0, since by definition a > 0 if and only if a = a − 0 ∈ N+ .

Order Axioms for the Integers

• Closure Axioms for N+ : If a, b ∈ N+ , then

a + b ∈ N+ and a · b ∈ N+ .

• Law of Trichotomy: For every integer a ∈ Z, exactly one of the following is true:

a ∈ N+ or − a ∈ N+ or a = 0.

Exercise. Use the Law of Trichotomy together with the fact that (−1) · (−1) = 1 to show that 1 > 0.

Definition. We say that an integer a is a zero divisor or divisor of zero if and only if a 6= 0 and there
exists an integer b 6= 0 such that a · b = 0.

Now we can show that Z with the usual notion of addition and multiplication has no zero divisors.

Theorem. If a, b ∈ Z and a · b = 0, then either a = 0 or b = 0.

Proof. Suppose that a, b ∈ Z and a · b = 0. If a 6= 0 and b 6= 0, since

a · b = (−a) · (−b) and − a · b = (−a) · b = a · (−b),

by considering all possible cases, the fact that N+ is closed under multiplication and the Law of Trichotomy
imply that a · b 6= 0, which is a contradiction. Therefore, if a · b = 0, then either a = 0 or b = 0.

Thus, Z with the usual notion of addition and multiplication is a commutative ring with identity which has
no zero divisors, such a structure is called an integral domain, and we have the following result.

Theorem. (Cancellation Law)

If a, b, c ∈ Z with c 6= 0, and if a · c = b · c, then a = b.
Proof. If a · c = b · c, then (a − b) · c = 0, and since c 6= 0, then a − b = 0.

Exercise. Show that the relation on Z defined by a ≤ b if and only if a < b or a = b, is a partial ordering,
that is, it is
• Reflexive: For each a ∈ Z, we have a ≤ a.
• Antisymmetric: For each a, b ∈ Z, if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then a = b.
• Transitive: For each a, b, c ∈ Z, if a ≤ b and b ≤ c, then a ≤ c.
Show also that this is a total ordering, that is, for any a, b ∈ Z, either a ≤ b or b ≤ a.
We have the standard results concerning the order relation on Z. We will prove (ii), (iv), and (v), and leave
the rest as exercises.

Theorem. If a, b, c, d ∈ Z, then
(i) if a < b, then a ± c ≤ b ± c.
(ii) If a < b and c > 0, then a · c < b · c.
(iii) If a < b and c < 0, then a · c > b · c.
(iv) If 0 < a < b and 0 < c < d, then a · c < b · d.
(v) If a ∈ Z and a 6= 0, then a2 > 0. In particular, 1 > 0.
Proof.
(ii) If a < b and c > 0, then b − a > 0 and c > 0, so that (b − a) · c > 0, that is, b · c − a · c > 0. Therefore,
a · c < b · c.
(iv) We have
b · d − a · c = b · d − b · c + b · c − a · c = b · (d − c) + c · (b − a) > 0
since b > 0, c > 0, d − c > 0, and b − a > 0.
(v) Let a ∈ Z, if a > 0, then (ii) implies that a · a > a · 0, that is, a2 > 0.
If a < 0, then −a > 0, and (ii) implies that a2 = (−a) · (−a) > 0. Finally, since 1 6= 0, then 1 = 12 > 0.

Exercise. Show that if a, b, c ∈ Z and a · b < a · c and a > 0, then b < c.

Finally, we need one more axiom for the set of integers.

Well-Ordering Axiom for the Integers

If B is a nonempty subset of Z which is bounded below, that is, there exists an n ∈ Z such that n ≤ b for
all b ∈ B, then B has a smallest element, that is, there exists a b0 ∈ B such that b0 < b for all b ∈ B, b 6= b0 .

In particular, we have

Theorem. (Well-Ordering Principle for N)

Every nonempty set of nonnegative integers has a least element.

It can be shown that the Well-Ordering Principle for N is logically equivalent to the Principle of Mathematical
Induction, so we may assume one of them as an axiom and prove the other one as a theorem.

Exercise. Show that the following statement is equivalent to the Well-Ordering Axiom for the Integers:
Every nonempty subset of integers which is bounded above has a largest element.
Example. The set of rational numbers

Q = a/b a, b ∈ Z, b 6= 0

with the usual ordering is not a well–ordered set, that is, there exists a nonempty subset B of Q which is
bounded below, but which has no smallest element.
Proof. In fact, we can take B = Q+ , the set of all positive rational numbers; clearly Q+ 6= ∅ and 0 < q for
all q ∈ Q+ , so it is also bounded below.
Now, suppose that Q+ has a smallest element, say q0 ∈ Q+ , then q0 /2 ∈ Q+ also, and q0 /2 < q0 , which is
a contradiction. Therefore, our original assumption must have been false, and Q+ has no smallest element,
so Q is not well–ordered.

Definition. The set of irrational numbers is the set of all real numbers that are not rational, that is, the
set R \ Q.

√
Example. The real number 2 is irrational.
Proof. We will show this using the Well-Ordering Principle. First note that the integer 2 lies between the
squares of two consecutive positive integers (consecutive squares), namely, 1 < 2 < 4, and therefore
√
1< 2 < 2,
√ √
(since 0 < 2 ≤ 1 implies 2 ≤ 1, a contradiction; while 2 ≥ 2 implies 2 ≥ 4, again, a contradiction).
Now let √
B = {b ∈ N+ | 2 = a/b for some a ∈ Z},
√
if 2 ∈ Q, then B 6= ∅.
Since B is bounded below by 0, then the Well-Ordering Principle implies that B has a smallest element, call
it b0 , so that
√ a0
2=
b0
where a0 , b0 ∈ N+ , and 2b20 = a20 .
Since
a0
1< < 2,
b0
then b0 < a0 < 2b0 , and therefore 0 < a0 − b0 < b0 .
Now we find a positive integer x such that
x a0
= ,
a0 − b 0 b0

that is, b0 x = a0 (a0 − b0 ) = a20 − a0 b0 = 2b20 − a0 b0 = b0 (2b0 − a0 ), so we may take x = 2b0 − a0 , and

√ 2b0 − a0 a0
2= = ,
a0 − b 0 b0

so that a0 − b0 ∈ B, and 0 < a0 − b0 < b0 . However, this contradicts √

the fact that b0 is the smallest element
in B, so our original assumption is incorrect. Therefore, B = ∅ and 2 is irrational.
Exercise. Show that √if m is a positive integer which is not a perfect square, that is, m is not the square of
another integer, then m is irrational.
√
Hint: The proof mimics the proof above for 2.

Definition. If n ∈ Z, then we say that n is even if and only if there exists an integer k ∈ Z such that
n = 2k. We say that n is odd if and only if there is an integer k ∈ Z such that n = 2k + 1.

We will use the Well-Ordering Principle to show that every integer is either even or odd, but first we need
a lemma.

Lemma. There does not exist an integer n satisfying 0 < n < 1.

Proof. Let
B = {n | n ∈ Z, and 0 < n < 1}.
If B 6= ∅, since B is bounded below by 0, then by the Well-Ordering Principle B has a smallest element, say
n0 ∈ B, but then multiplying the inequality 0 < n0 < 1 by the positive integer n0 , we have

0 < n20 < n0 < 1.

However, n20 is an integer and so n20 ∈ B, which contradicts the fact that n0 is the smallest element of B.
Therefore, our original assumption is incorrect and B = ∅, that is, there does not exist an integer n satisfying
0 < n < 1. Note that we have shown that 1 is the smallest positive integer.

Theorem. Every integer n ∈ Z is either even or odd.

Proof. Suppose there exists an integer N ∈ Z such that N is neither even nor odd, let

B = {n ∈ Z | n is even or odd and n ≤ N },

then B 6= ∅ and B is bounded above by N. By the Well-Ordering Property, B has a largest element, say
n0 ∈ B. Since n0 is either even or odd, and n0 ≤ N, then we must have the strict inequality n0 < N.
If n0 is even, then n0 + 1 is odd, and since n0 is the largest such integer in B, then we must have

n0 < N < n0 + 1.

If n0 is odd, then n0 + 1 is even, and again, since n0 is the largest such integer in B, we must have

n0 < N < n0 + 1.

Thus, in both cases, N − n0 is an integer and

0 < N − n0 < 1,

which is a contradiction. Therefore, our original assumption was incorrect, and there does not exist an
integer N ∈ Z which is neither even nor odd, that is, every integer n ∈ Z is either even or odd.
Theorem. There does not exist an integer a ∈ Z which is both even and odd. Thus the set of integers Z is
partitioned into two disjoint classes, the even integers and the odd integers.
Proof. Suppose that a ∈ Z and a is both even and odd, then there exist k, ` ∈ Z such that

a = 2k and a = 2` + 1,

and therefore 2` + 1 = 2k, so that 2(k − `) = 1.

Now, since 1 > 0, the law of trichotomy implies that k − ` > 0. Also, since 2 = 1 + 1 > 1 + 0 = 1, then

1 = 2 · (k − `) > 1 · (k − `) = k − `.

Therefore, k − ` is an integer satisfying 0 < k − ` < 1, which is a contradiction, and our assumption that
there exists an integer a which is both even and odd is false.

Mathematical Induction
Now we show that the Principle of Mathematical Induction and the Well-Ordering Principle for N are
logically equivalent. First we state the induction principle.

• Principle of Mathematical Induction:

If P is a set of integers such that
1. a is in P,
2. for all k ≥ a, if the integer k is in P, then the integer k + 1 is also in P,
then P = {x ∈ Z | x ≥ a} that is, P is the set of all integers greater than or equal to a.

We need the previous lemma which states that 1 is the smallest positive integer, and we need to be able to
prove it using either well–ordering or induction.

Lemma. 1 is the smallest positive integer.

proof.
(i) Based on the Principle of Mathematical Induction.
Let S be the set of all positive integers greater than or equal to 1. Trivially, 1 ∈ S. If the integer k is in
S, then k ≥ 1, so that
k+1>k ≥1
and so the integer k + 1 is in S. It follows from the principle of mathematical induction that S is the
set of all positive integers. Therefore, each positive integer is greater than or equal to 1.
(ii) Based on the Well–Ordering Principle.
Suppose that 1 is not the smallest positive integer, since 1 is positive, from the Well–Ordering Principle,
there is a smallest positive integer, say s, and s < 1. If we multiply the inequality

0<s<1

by s, then
0 < s2 < s,
which implies that s is not the smallest positive integer. Because our assumption led to a contradiction,
it must be false. Therefore, 1 is the smallest positive integer.
The following lemma is true, assuming either the Well-Ordering Principle or the Principle of Mathematical
Induction.

Lemma. If n is an integer, there is no integer between n and n + 1 (exclusive).

proof.
Suppose that n is an integer and there exists an integer m such that n < m < n + 1, then p = m − n is an
integer and satisfies the inequalities 0 < p < 1, which contradicts the previous lemma. Therefore, given an
integer n, there is no integer between n and n + 1.

Theorem. The principles of mathematical induction and well–ordering are logically equivalent.
proof.
I. Assume that the well–ordering principle holds. Let a be a fixed integer, and let S be a set of integers such
that
1. a is in S, and
2. for all k ≥ a, if k is in S, then k + 1 is also in S
We have to show that S is the set of all integers greater than or equal to a.
Let
T = {x ∈ Z | x ≥ a and x 6∈ S},
that is, T is the set of all integers greater than or equal to a that are not in S. If T is nonempty, then it
follows from the well–ordering principle that T has a smallest element, say x0 ∈ T. Since x0 ≥ a and a 6∈ T,
then x0 > a, and since there are no integers between x0 − 1 and x0 , this implies that x0 − 1 ≥ a. Therefore,
x0 − 1 6∈ T since x0 is the smallest element of T, and so x0 − 1 must be in S. By the second property of S,
we have x0 − 1 + 1 = x0 is also in S, which is a contradicton. Because our assumption that T is nonempty
leads to a contradiction, it must be false. Therefore, T is empty and

S = {x ∈ Z | x ≥ a},

that is, S is the set of all integers greater than or equal to a, and the principle of mathematical induction
holds.
II. Assume that the principle of mathematical induction holds, assume also that there exists a nonempty set
S of integers which is bounded below by an integer a, and that S does not have a smallest element. Since
a ≤ x for every x ∈ S, and S does not have a smallest element, then a 6∈ S and therefore, a < x for all x ∈ S.
Let
T = {x ∈ Z | x ≥ a and x < s for all s ∈ S},
that is, T is the set of all integers greater than or equal to a which are strictly less than every element of S.
We have shown that a is in T. Now suppose that k ≥ a is in T, so that k < s for all s ∈ S. If k + 1 is in S,
then since there is no integer between k and k + 1, this implies that k + 1 is the smallest element of S, which
contradicts our assumption about S. Thus, if k is in T, then k + 1 must also be in T. It follows from the
principle of mathematical induction that T is the set of all integers greater than or equal to a, and so S is
empty. Therefore, if S is a nonempty set of integers which is bounded below, then S has a smallest element,
and the well–ordering principle holds.
There is a variation of the principle of mathematical induction that, in some cases, is easier to apply:

• Strong Principle of Mathematical Induction:

If P is a set of integers such that
1. a is in P,
2. if all integers k, with a ≤ k ≤ n are in P, then the integer n + 1 is also in P,
then P = {x ∈ Z | x ≥ a} that is, P is the set of all integers greater than or equal to a.

Exercise. Prove that the strong principle of mathematical induction is equivalent to both the principle of
mathematical induction and the well–ordering principle.

We now give some classical examples that use principle of mathematical induction.

Example 1. Given a positive integer n, consider a square of side n made up of n2 1 × 1 squares. We will
show that the total number Sn of squares present is
n
X n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
Sn = k2 = . (∗)
6
k=1

Solution. For example, if n = 4, then it is easily seen from the figure

that the total number of squares present is 30, since there are

42 = 16 1 × 1 squares
2
3 =9 2 × 2 squares
2
2 =4 3 × 3 squares
2
1 =1 4 × 4 squares

for a total of 30.

We will show that (∗) is true by induction on n.
We will show that (∗) is true by induction on n.
Base Case: For n = 1, there is only 1 square, so that S1 = 1, and

1
X
k 2 = 12 = 1,
k=1

so that (∗) is true for n = 1.

Inductive Step: Let n ≥ 1 be arbitrary and assume that (∗) is true for n. Con sider an (n + 1) × (n + 1)
square, where we have added 2n + 1 unit squares along the bottom and ri ght hand side of an n × n square,
as shown in the figure.

The only new squares that have been added are those that contain one of the new unit squares on the border,
and we can count these as follows.
For each k with 1 ≤ k ≤ n + 1, we have

2[n + 1 − (k − 1)] − 1 = 2(n + 2 − k) − 1

squares of side k,

n+1−k

and therefore we have added

n+1
X n+1
X
[2(n + 2 − k) − 1] = 2 (n + 2 − k) − (n + 1)
k=1 k=1
n+1
X
=2 k − (n + 1)
k=1
= (n + 1)(n + 2) − (n + 1)
= (n + 1)2

new squares.
From the inductive hypothesis, we have

n
X n+1
X
Sn+1 = Sn + (n + 1)2 = k 2 + (n + 1)2 = k2
k=1 k=1

n
k 2 for all n ≥ 1.
P
Therefore, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, we have Sn =
k=1
Example 2.
(a) Let {an }n≥0 , be the unique solution to the discrete initial value problem

an+2 = an+1 + an n≥0

a0 = 0
a1 = 1,

that is, an is the nth term in the Fibonacci sequence, then

" √ !n √ !n #
1 1+ 5 1− 5
an = √ −
5 2 2

for all n ≥ 0. This is called Binet’s formula, it was first discovered by DeMoivre, and later independently
by Binet. √
1+ 5 αn
(b) Let α = , then an is the nearest integer to √ for all n ≥ 0.
2 5
Solution: We leave it as an exercise to prove Binet’s formula using the principle of mathematical induction.
(a) Assuming a solution of the form an = λn , the characteristic equation becomes λ2 = λ + 1, with two
distinct real roots, √ √
1+ 5 1− 5
λ1 = and λ2 = ,
2 2
so the general solution is
√ !n √ !n
1+ 5 1− 5
an = A · +B· ,
2 2

where the constants A and B are determined from the initial conditions
√ ! √ !
1+ 5 1− 5
a0 = A + B = 0 and a1 = A · +B· =1
2 2

to be
1 1
A= √ and B = −√ ,
5 5
so that " √ !n √ !n #
1 1+ 5 1− 5
an = √ −
5 2 2

for all n ≥ 0.
1 1
(b) Since √ < , then
5 2
√ !n
1 1− 5 1
√ < ,
5 2 2

so that √ !n
1 1 1− 5 1
− < −√ <
2 5 2 2

and therefore, from Binet’s formula,

√ !n √ !n
1 1+ 5 1 1 1+ 5 1
√ − < an < √ + .
5 2 2 5 2 2
 Equivalently,
√ !n
1 1+ 5 1
an − √ <
5 2 2
√ n
!
1 1+ 5
so that an is the nearest integer to √ .
5 2

Example 3. Let a be a positive real number such that

1
a+
a
is an integer. Use the principle of strong mathematical induction to show that

1
an + (∗)
an
is also an integer for all positive integers n.
Solution: Let a be a positive real number such that

1
a+
a
is an integer.
Base Case: We will show that (∗) is also true for n = 2. We have
 2
1 1 1 1
a+ = a2 + a · + 2 = a2 + 2 + 1,
a a a a

so that  2
1
2 1
a + 2 = a+ − 1.
a a

Since the expression on the right side of this equality is an integer, then the expression on the left side is
also an integer.
Inductive Step: Assume that (∗) is true for all integers k such that 1 ≤ k ≤ n, we will show that this implies
that (∗) is also true for n + 1. We have
  
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
an + a+ = an+1 + an · + a · n + n+1 = an+1 + n+1 + an−1 + n−1
an a a a a a a

so that     
1 1 1 1
an+1 + = an + a+ − an−1 + .
an+1 an a an−1

From the inductive hypothesis, the expression on the right side of this equality is an integer, so that the
expression on the left side is also an integer, and (∗) is true for n + 1.
By the principle of strong mathematical induction the result is true for all positive integers n.