Axiomatic Definition
A Dirichlet character is any function χ from the integers to the complex numbers which has the following properties:
- There exists a positive integer k such that χ(n) = χ(n + k) for all n.
- If gcd(n,k) > 1 then χ(n) = 0; if gcd(n,k) = 1 then χ(n) ≠ 0.
- χ(mn) = χ(m)χ(n) for all integers m and n.
From this definition, several other properties can be deduced. By property 3), χ(1)=χ(1×1)=χ(1)χ(1). Since gcd(1, k) = 1, property 2) says χ(1) ≠ 0, so
- χ(1) = 1.
Properties 3) and 4) show that every Dirichlet character χ is completely multiplicative.
Property 1) says that a character is periodic with period k; we say that χ is a character to the modulus k. This is equivalent to saying that
- If a ≡ b (mod k) then χ(a) = χ(b).
If gcd(a,k) = 1, Euler's theorem says that aφ(k) ≡ 1 (mod k) (where φ(k) is the totient function). Therefore by 5) and 4), χ(aφ(k)) = χ(1) = 1, and by 3), χ(aφ(k)) =χ(a)φ(k). So
- For all a relatively prime to k, χ(a) is a φ(k)-th complex root of unity.
The unique character of period 1 is called the trivial character. Note that any character vanishes at 0 except the trivial one, which is 1 on all integers.
A character is called principal if it assumes the value 1 for arguments coprime to its modulus and otherwise is 0. A character is called real if it assumes real values only. A character which is not real is called complex.
The sign of the character χ depends on its value at −1. Specifically, χ is said to be odd if χ(−1) = −1 and even if χ(−1) = 1.
Read more about this topic: Dirichlet Character
Famous quotes containing the words axiomatic and/or definition:
“It is ... axiomatic that we should all think of ourselves as being more sensitive than other people because, when we are insensitive in our dealings with others, we cannot be aware of it at the time: conscious insensitivity is a self-contradiction.”
—W.H. (Wystan Hugh)
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (18391894)