Wilson’s theorem. (English) Zbl 1204.11166

More than two hundred years ago Gauss generalized Wilson’s theorem (\((p-1)!\equiv -1 \pmod p\)), that is he gave the following proposition:
Proposition 1. (Gauss)
The product of all elements in \((\mathbb Z/A\mathbb Z)^\times\) is \(\bar 1\) or \(-\bar 1\).
Later K. Hensel [J. Reine Angewandte Math. 146, 189–215 (1916; JFM 46.0251.01)] developed his local notions, which could have allowed him to extend the result from \(\mathbb Z\) to rings of integers in number fields.
Proposition 2. For an ideal \(\mathfrak{a}\subset \mathfrak{o}\) in the ring of integers of a number field \(K\), the product of all elements in \((\mathfrak{o}/\mathfrak{a})^\times\) is \(\bar 1\), except that it is
(1) \(-\bar 1\) when \(\mathfrak{a}\) has precisely one odd prime divisor, and \(v_{\mathfrak{p}}(\mathfrak{a})<2\) for every even prime ideal \(\mathfrak p\),
(2) \(\bar 1 + \bar\pi\) (resp \(\bar 1+ \bar\pi^2\)) when all prime divisors of \(\mathfrak a\) are even and for precisely one of them, say \(\mathfrak p\), \(v_{\mathfrak p}(\mathfrak a)>1\) with moreover \(v_{\mathfrak p}(\mathfrak a)=2\), \(f_{\mathfrak p}=1\) (resp. \(v_{\mathfrak p}(\mathfrak a)=3\), \(f_{\mathfrak p}=1\), \(e_{\mathfrak p}>1\)); here \(\pi\) is any element of \(\mathfrak p\) not in \(\mathfrak p^2\), and we have identified \((\mathfrak o/\mathfrak p^2)^\times\) (resp. \((\mathfrak o/\mathfrak p^3)^\times\)) with a subgroup of \((\mathfrak o/\mathfrak a)^\times\).
In the proposition above \(v_{\mathfrak p}(\mathfrak a)\) is the exponent of \(\mathfrak p\) in the prime decomposition of \(\mathfrak a\); \(f_{\mathfrak p}\) is the residual degree and \(e_{\mathfrak p}\) the ramification index of \(K_{\mathfrak p}|\mathbb Q_p\) (\(p\) being the rational prime which belongs to \(\mathfrak p\)).
The author’s goal is to show how Hensel could have done it. For proving this the author uses the following proposition:
Proposition 3. Denoting by \(e\) the ramification index and by \(f\) the residual degree of \(K|\mathbb Q_p\), we have \(d_2((\mathfrak o/\mathfrak p^n)^\times)=\)
(1) 1 if \(p\neq 2\),
(2) 0 if \(p=2\), \(n=1\),
(3) 1 if \(p=2\), \(n=2\), \(f=1\),
(4) 1 if \(p=2\), \(n=3\), \(f=1\), \(e>1\),
(5) \(>1\) in all other cases.
For any \(\mathfrak o\)-basis \(\pi\) of \(\mathfrak p\), the unique order-2 element in the cases \(d_2=1\) is
(1) \(-\bar 1\) if \(p\neq 2\),
(2) \(\bar 1+\bar \pi\) if \(p=2\), \(n=2\), \(f=1\),
(3) \(\bar 1+\bar \pi^2\) if \(p=2\), \(n=3\), \(f=1\), \(e>1\).
This proof of Proposition 2 is shorter, simpler, more direct and more conceptual than M. Laššák’s one [Math. Slovaca 50, No. 3, 303–314 (2000; Zbl 0997.11086)].


11R04 Algebraic numbers; rings of algebraic integers
11R44 Distribution of prime ideals
Full Text: DOI arXiv Numdam EuDML


[1] C. Gauss, Disquisitiones arithmeticae. Gerh. Fleischer, Lipsiae, 1801, xviii+668 pp.
[2] K. Hensel, Die multiplikative Darstellung der algebraischen Zahlen für den Bereich eines beliebigen Primteilers. J. f. d. reine und angewandte Math., 146 (1916), pp. 189-215.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.