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


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
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.


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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.


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


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
number-theory modular-arithmetic congruence-relations
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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 $a_jb^j$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$(m-l)d=kn$ 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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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 $a_jb^j$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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 $a_jb^j$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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 $a_jb^j$.
$endgroup$
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 $a_jb^j$.
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$(m-l)d=kn$ 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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$(m-l)d=kn$ 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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$(m-l)d=kn$ 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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
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