Number Theory: Problem with proofsCongruence equation problemWhat does $ a pmod b$ mean?Linear congruence fill in the missing step?Proof: if $n > 1$ then $LD(n) $ is a prime numberNumber Theory Lemma About Linear Congruence (Explanation Needed)Chinese remainder theorem, how to get a ≡ b (mod pq) from a ≡ b (mod p) and a ≡ b (mod q)?Proof verification: $a+bequiv b+a ;; (mod;;n)$ and $abequiv ba ;; (mod;;n)$.Showing two different definitions of a primitive root are the sameweird gcd problem in number theoryNumber Theory Linear Diophantine Equations

PTIJ: does fasting on Ta'anis Esther give us reward as if we celebrated 2 Purims? (similar to Yom Kippur)

Personal or impersonal in a technical resume

Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup

Alignment of six matrices

When and why was runway 07/25 at Kai Tak removed?

Number Theory: Problem with proofs

Possible Eco thriller, man invents a device to remove rain from glass

Identifying "long and narrow" polygons in with Postgis

Consistent Linux device enumeration

How to write Quadratic equation with negative coefficient

How to test the sharpness of a knife?

El Dorado Word Puzzle II: Videogame Edition

Unable to disable Microsoft Store in domain environment

What should be the ideal length of sentences in a blog post for ease of reading?

Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?

How do I fix the group tension caused by my character stealing and possibly killing without provocation?

How to leave product feedback on macOS?

Telemetry for feature health

Determining multivariate least squares with constraint

Purpose of creating non root user

Storage of electrolytic capacitors - how long?

What the heck is gets(stdin) on site coderbyte?

How to understand "he realized a split second too late was also a mistake"

If the only attacker is removed from combat, is a creature still counted as having attacked this turn?



Number Theory: Problem with proofs


Congruence equation problemWhat does $ a pmod b$ mean?Linear congruence fill in the missing step?Proof: if $n > 1$ then $LD(n) $ is a prime numberNumber Theory Lemma About Linear Congruence (Explanation Needed)Chinese remainder theorem, how to get a ≡ b (mod pq) from a ≡ b (mod p) and a ≡ b (mod q)?Proof verification: $a+bequiv b+a ;; (mod;;n)$ and $abequiv ba ;; (mod;;n)$.Showing two different definitions of a primitive root are the sameweird gcd problem in number theoryNumber Theory Linear Diophantine Equations













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
    5 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
    5 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 5 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
    5 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
    5 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
5 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
5 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 $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
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
    5 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
    5 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
    26 mins 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
    4 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
    1 hour 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 $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
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
    5 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
    5 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
    26 mins 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 $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
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
    5 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
    5 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
    26 mins 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 $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
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 $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
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 5 hours ago

























answered 5 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
    5 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
    5 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
    26 mins 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
    5 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
    5 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
    26 mins 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
26 mins 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
26 mins 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
    4 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
    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
    4 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
    1 hour 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 5 hours ago

























answered 5 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
    4 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
    1 hour ago
















  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    4 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
    1 hour ago















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





$begingroup$
$(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
$endgroup$
– MrAP
4 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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

Saint-André (Pyrenaeus Orientalis) Nexus interni Nexus externi | Tabula navigationisOpenStreetMapGeoNames66168De hoc commune apud cassini.ehess.frHuius communis pagina interretialisAmplifica

Constantinus Vanšenkin Nexus externi | Tabula navigationisБольшая российская энциклопедияAmplifica

Montigny (Ligerula) Nexus interni Nexus externi | Tabula navigationisGeoNames45214Amplifica