# Divisibility rules in the binary system

So, during the study of congruences and divisibility I encountered the usual divisibility rules for the decimal system. However, as an exercise I received the following claims that I have to prove in the binary system, i.e. now a natural number $n$ is represented as $n = \sum_{k=0}^{2m} b_k2^k, b_i \in \mathbb{N}, m \in \mathbb{N}$. With those I struggle quite a bit as it seems that I don't yet have fully grasped the concept of modular arithmetic.

The exercise is to show that

i) $3 | n \Leftrightarrow 3|\sum_{k=0}^{2m} b_k(-1)^k \Leftrightarrow 3|\sum_{k=0}^{m} b_{2k} + 2b_{2k+1}$

ii) $5|n \Leftrightarrow 5|\sum_{k=0}^{m} (b_{2k} + 2b_{2k+1})(-1)^k$

Moreover, I have to find a rule for the divisivility by 7. Since I do not know how to go about proving the above, I am even more lost finding a rule.

Hint. Note that $2\equiv -1\pmod{3}$ and $4\equiv -1\pmod{5}$. Hence $$n = \sum_{k=0}^{2m} b_k2^k\equiv \sum_{k=0}^{2m} b_k(-1)^k \pmod{3}$$ and $$n = \sum_{k=0}^{2m+1} b_k2^k=\sum_{k=0}^{m} b_{2k}2^{2k}+\sum_{k=0}^{m} b_{2k+1}2^{2k+1}\equiv \sum_{k=0}^{m} b_{2k}(-1)^{k} +\sum_{k=0}^{m} b_{2k+1}2\cdot(-1)^{k} \pmod{5}.$$ Can you take it from here?

• Well, first of all thanks for your fast reply. Second, may I ask you some questions for clarification? Why do we need to sum over $2m$ instead of $m$ to begin with? So, okay, $n \equiv \sum_{k=0}^{2m} b_k(-1)^k (\mod 3)$ -- but what to conclude from that? For me that just means that both leave the same residue after division. But where is the equivalence here? – Taufi Nov 28 '16 at 15:54
• @Taufi The final index $2m$ is not so important. If $n$ has less than $2m+1$ digits then the extra digits are zero. Moreover, $n$ is divisible by $d$ iff the residue modulo $d$ is zero, So if $n$ and $m$ have the same residue modulo $d$ and one of them is divisible by $d$ then also the other is divisible by $d$ and viceversa (equivalence). – Robert Z Nov 28 '16 at 16:27

Notice that both sums break the number up into pairs of binary digits: you’re adding (or alternately adding and subtracting) the quantities $b_{2k}+2b_{2k+1}$. Look at a concrete example, say $1101001011$.

$$\begin{array}{rcc} k:&4&3&2&1&0\\ b_{2k+1}b_{2k}:&11&01&00&10&11\\ b_{2k}+2b_{2k+1}:&3&1&0&2&3 \end{array}$$

The proposed test for divisibility by $3$ then adds the numbers in the bottom row to get $9$, which is divisible by $3$, and indeed $1101001011_{\text{two}}=843=3\cdot281$ is divisible by $3$.

In fact the bottom row is just the base four representation of $n$:

$$\sum_{k=0}^{2m}b_k2^k=\sum_{k=0}^m(b_{2k}+2b_{2k+1})2^{2k}=\sum_{k=0}^m(b_{2k}+2b_{2k+1})4^k\;,$$

and each $b_{2k}+2b_{2k+1}$ is $0,1,2$, or $3$. If you think of it in terms of the base four representation, this test is just like the usual test for divisibility by $9$ of a number written in ordinary decimal notation, and it works for the same reason: $3$ is $1$ less than the base, just as $9$ is $1$ less than our usual base of $4$.

The general result is that if you write a positive integer in base $b$, that integer is divisible by $b-1$ if and only if the sum of its digits is divisible by $b-1$ and, more generally, the integer and the sum of its digits are congruent modulo $b-1$.

To see this, let $n=\sum_{k=0}^md_kb^k$, where each $d_k\in\{0,1,\ldots,b-1\}$. Clearly $b\equiv 1\pmod{b-1}$, so $b^k\equiv 1^k\pmod{b-1}$, and of course $1^k=1$, so

$$n=\sum_{k=0}^md_kb^k\equiv\sum_{k=0}^md_k\pmod{b-1}\;.$$

The test for divisibility by $5$ is similar, except that it takes the alternating sum of the base four digits. If you know the test for divisibility by $11$ in our ordinary decimal system, you’ll recognize this as analogous, and again it works more generally: an integer written in base $b$ is congruent mod $b+1$ to the alternating sum of its digits, and in particular it’s divisible by $b+1$ if and only if the alternating sum of its digits is. Again the calculation is straightforward: we use the fact that $b\equiv-1\pmod{b+1}$, so that

$$\sum_{k=0}^md_kb^k\equiv\sum_{k=0}^md_k(-1)^k\pmod{b+1}\;.$$

In the present case $b$ is really $4$, even though we’re actually working with numbers written in binary: as noted above, using the terms $b_{2k}+2b_{2k+1}$ is in effect just converting the number to base four.

For the final part of the question you’ll want a base different from $4$, but it will still be one such that the representation in that base is very, very easily derivable from the binary representation.

Let $$n=\sum_{k\geq0} b_k2^k$$ with $b_k\in\{0,1\}$. From $$2^k=(-1)^k\quad({\rm mod}\ 3),\qquad2^{2j}=(-1)^j\quad({\rm mod}\ 5),\qquad 2^{3j}=1\quad({\rm mod}\ 7)$$ it follows that \eqalign{n&=\sum_{k\geq0}(-1)^kb_k\qquad({\rm mod}\ 3)\ ,\cr n&=\sum_{j\geq0}(b_{2j}+2b_{2j+1})(-1)^j\qquad({\rm mod}\ 5)\ ,\cr n&=\sum_{j\geq0}(b_{3j}+2b_{3j+1}+4b_{3j+2})\qquad({\rm mod}\ 7)\ .\cr}

Although the question about 3 and 5 refers to binary numbers, it's really about numbers in base 4. Each digit in base 4 is made of 2 binary digits. E.g. 19 is 10011 in binary. To get it in base 4, add a 0 at the front to make an even number of binary digits, then group the binary digits in pairs 01,00,11, which gives 103 in base 4. I think the person who set the question has slipped up: the top index $2m$ should be $2m - 1$, to make an even number of binary digits, and the top index $m$ should be $m-1$. The formulae in the question follow because the rules for divisibility by 3 and 5 in base 4 are analogous to the rules for divisibility by 9 and 11 in base 10. For divisibility by 7, I suppose you're expected to divide the binary digits into groups of three and work in base 8.

Hint  It's immediate decomposing $\,b(x) = \sum _k b_k x^k \,$ into even and odd parts

\begin{align} b(x) &= b_0(x^2)+ x\, b_1(x^2)\\ \\ \Rightarrow\ \ {\rm mod}\ 3\!:\ b(2) &\equiv\ b_0(\color{#c00}1)\,+\,2\,b_1(\color{#c00}1)\quad\ \ \ {\rm by}\ \ \color{#c00}{2^2\,\equiv\, 1} \\ \\ \Rightarrow\ \ {\rm mod}\ 5\!:\ b(2)&\equiv b_0(\color{#0a0}{-1})+2\,b_1(\color{#0a0}{-1})\ \ {\rm by}\ \ \ \color{#0a0}{2^2\equiv -1} \end{align}

Remark $\$ Analogous results hold mod $\,d^2\pm1\,$ in radix $d\$ by using $\,\color{#c00}{d^2\equiv \mp 1},\,$ e.g. the familiar casting out $\,99\,$ or $101$ in decimal notation. Using modular arithmetic makes it easy to do even much hairier modular magic such as casting out ninety-one's using $\ 91 = 10^2\!-10+1,\,$ e.g.

$${\rm mod}\ 91\!:\,\ 6543210\, \equiv\, 0\! -\!2\! \!-3\! +\!5\!+\!6 + (1\! +\!2\! -\!4\! -\!5) 10\, \equiv\, 6\!-\!60\, \equiv\, {37}$$