Number Theory: Problem with proofs












2












$begingroup$


There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.



enter image description here



enter image description here



For Proposition 3



I cannot understand the proof from "Therefore ..." in the third line. I was thinking that maybe "$m-l$ divides $k$" will be "$m-l$ divides $n$". Also, is $k/d$ an integer?
Also, can someone please give an example to clarify this theorem?



For Proposition 4



What does $f(x) in Z[x]$ mean? Why are the third brackets used?



I cannot understand how "By proposition 2, $a_ja^j equiv b_jb^j$ (mod $n$)...".
Can someone please explain?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    7 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.



enter image description here



enter image description here



For Proposition 3



I cannot understand the proof from "Therefore ..." in the third line. I was thinking that maybe "$m-l$ divides $k$" will be "$m-l$ divides $n$". Also, is $k/d$ an integer?
Also, can someone please give an example to clarify this theorem?



For Proposition 4



What does $f(x) in Z[x]$ mean? Why are the third brackets used?



I cannot understand how "By proposition 2, $a_ja^j equiv b_jb^j$ (mod $n$)...".
Can someone please explain?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    7 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.



enter image description here



enter image description here



For Proposition 3



I cannot understand the proof from "Therefore ..." in the third line. I was thinking that maybe "$m-l$ divides $k$" will be "$m-l$ divides $n$". Also, is $k/d$ an integer?
Also, can someone please give an example to clarify this theorem?



For Proposition 4



What does $f(x) in Z[x]$ mean? Why are the third brackets used?



I cannot understand how "By proposition 2, $a_ja^j equiv b_jb^j$ (mod $n$)...".
Can someone please explain?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.



enter image description here



enter image description here



For Proposition 3



I cannot understand the proof from "Therefore ..." in the third line. I was thinking that maybe "$m-l$ divides $k$" will be "$m-l$ divides $n$". Also, is $k/d$ an integer?
Also, can someone please give an example to clarify this theorem?



For Proposition 4



What does $f(x) in Z[x]$ mean? Why are the third brackets used?



I cannot understand how "By proposition 2, $a_ja^j equiv b_jb^j$ (mod $n$)...".
Can someone please explain?







number-theory modular-arithmetic congruence-relations






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 7 hours ago









MrAPMrAP

1,18721432




1,18721432












  • $begingroup$
    I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    7 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    7 hours ago
















$begingroup$
I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
$endgroup$
– fleablood
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
$endgroup$
– fleablood
7 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^{j-1}cdot aequiv a_ja^{j-1}bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    1 hour ago





















3












$begingroup$

I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    3 hours ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3155648%2fnumber-theory-problem-with-proofs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4












$begingroup$

For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^{j-1}cdot aequiv a_ja^{j-1}bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    1 hour ago


















4












$begingroup$

For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^{j-1}cdot aequiv a_ja^{j-1}bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    1 hour ago
















4












4








4





$begingroup$

For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^{j-1}cdot aequiv a_ja^{j-1}bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^{j-1}cdot aequiv a_ja^{j-1}bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 7 hours ago

























answered 7 hours ago









ArthurArthur

119k7118202




119k7118202












  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    1 hour ago




















  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    1 hour ago


















$begingroup$
heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
@fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
6 hours ago






$begingroup$
@fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
6 hours ago














$begingroup$
Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
$endgroup$
– MrAP
2 hours ago






$begingroup$
Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
$endgroup$
– MrAP
2 hours ago














$begingroup$
@MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
1 hour ago






$begingroup$
@MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
1 hour ago














$begingroup$
By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
$endgroup$
– MrAP
1 hour ago






$begingroup$
By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
$endgroup$
– MrAP
1 hour ago













3












$begingroup$

I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    3 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$

I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    3 hours ago














3












3








3





$begingroup$

I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 6 hours ago

























answered 7 hours ago









fleabloodfleablood

72.8k22788




72.8k22788












  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    3 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    6 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    3 hours ago
















$begingroup$
$(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
$endgroup$
– MrAP
6 hours ago






$begingroup$
$(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
$endgroup$
– MrAP
6 hours ago














$begingroup$
IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
3 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3155648%2fnumber-theory-problem-with-proofs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

香粉寮

GameSpot