Quick questions about modular arithmetic

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyICON
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arithmetic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around questions related to modular arithmetic, specifically the equivalence of expressions and congruences. Participants explore the implications of different notations and formulations in modular arithmetic, as well as their understanding of congruences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the expressions 99999^{99} + 1 \equiv 24^{99} + 1 (mod 25) and 99999^{99} + 1 \equiv 24^{99} (mod 25) are equivalent.
  • Another participant asserts that the first expression is standard and that the second is understood but less common in format.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about whether moving the +1 affects the meaning of the congruence.
  • One participant asks if the two congruences 24^{99} + 1 \equiv 0 \mod 25 and 24^{99} + 1 \mod 25 \equiv 0 \mod 25 are the same.
  • A response clarifies that the two statements are indeed equivalent, but emphasizes that writing the mod twice is unnecessary.
  • Another participant reflects on the definition of congruence as a ternary relation and discusses the implications of omitting the modulo part.
  • A later reply provides a specific example of how to evaluate 24^{99} + 1 mod 25, concluding that it simplifies to 0.
  • One participant acknowledges using the method described in a previous post and expresses appreciation for the clarification provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the equivalence of certain expressions, but there remains some uncertainty regarding notation and the implications of different formulations. The discussion does not reach a consensus on all points, particularly regarding the clarity of notation in modular arithmetic.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about their understanding of modular arithmetic and the implications of different notations, indicating a need for clarity in definitions and expressions used in the discussion.

johnnyICON
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
[tex]99999^{99} + 1[/tex]
As [tex]99999 \equiv[/tex]24[tex](mod \25)[/tex]
Can I say then:
[tex]99999^{99} + 1 \equiv[/tex]24[tex]^{99} + 1(mod \25)[/tex], or is it
[tex]99999^{99} + 1 \equiv[/tex]24[tex]^{99}(mod \25) + 1[/tex],
or are these two the same things?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
johnnyICON said:
[tex]99999^{99} + 1 \equiv[/tex]24[tex]^{99} + 1(mod \25)[/tex]

This one is standard. People would probably understand the second, but the usual format is to write the mod at the end.
 
oh ok, i was just wondering if the two were the same. I was uncertain if by moving the +1 before the mod5 it would change the meaning. Awesome, well then that makes this question a lot easier now. Thanks :D
 
Another quick question.

Are the following two congruencies the same?
1. [tex]24^{99} + 1 \equiv 0 \mod \25[/tex]
2. [tex]24^{99} + 1 \mod \25 \equiv 0 \mod \25[/tex]

I am trying to show that a number is divisible by 25, and I found that 25 can be written in terms expressed in equation #1. And I found that number that I am trying to divide by 25 can be expressed in terms expressed in equation #2.

I thought I finished the proof but now that I am looking at it, I am unsure about this one thing.
 
When you write 25 don't write it \25 or the 5 just shows up, write it normally, e.g:

[tex]24^{99} + 1 \equiv 0 \mod 25[/tex]

and:

[tex]24^{99} + 1 \mod 25 \equiv 0 \mod 25[/tex]

There two statements are the same, I think you miss the point though. Something like:

[tex]24^{99} + 1 \mod 37 \equiv 0 \mod 25[/tex]

Woule make not really make that much sense, so amoung other reasons there is no reasons to write the mod twice.
 
Okay. Because I was trying to show that equation #2 and #1 are equivalent.

So they are right? LOL sorry, I'm just very uncertain about myself.
 
johnnyICON said:
Okay. Because I was trying to show that equation #2 and #1 are equivalent.
Well, people tend to view congruence defined as a ternary relation:

[tex]x \equiv y \mod n \overset{def}{\Longleftrightarrow} n|x-y.[/tex]

Sometimes one omits the modulo part, but it is still understood that we're dealing with modulo arithmetic by using the equivalence sign [tex]\equiv[/tex], instead of an equality sign. Another way of stating a congruence [tex]x \equiv y \mod n[/tex] is by saying that [tex]x[/tex] and [tex]y[/tex] belong to the same residue class (look this up on mathworld.wolfram.com). That is

[tex]x \equiv y \mod n \Leftrightarrow [x]_n = [y]_n[/tex]

So, your equation 2. states (with the missing 2 from 25) that

[tex][[25^{99}+1]_{25}]_{25} = [0]_{25}[/tex]
 
Remember Matt Grime's post in your other thread. You are trying to show that
24^99 +1 = 0 mod 25.
but 24^99 +1 = (-1)^25 +1 = -1+1 = 0 mod 25, since 24=-1 mod 25 and since -1 raised to an odd power is -1. Q.E.D.
 
Yea, that's exactly how I did it Ramsey :D Sorry, I should of concluded this thread by mentioning that. Thanks for another helpful response though. I appreciate it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K