Are There Simplification Rules for Modulo 1 Arithmetic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter svensl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arithmetic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the lack of simplification rules for modulo 1 arithmetic, particularly concerning the fractional parts of real numbers. Participants clarify that while modular arithmetic is well-documented for integers and certain cases like mod N, similar rules do not apply to mod 1. Specifically, operations such as multiplication do not yield straightforward simplifications, as demonstrated by examples provided. The conversation also touches on the distinction between integer and real number modular arithmetic, emphasizing the complexity of the latter. Participants express a desire for literature or resources that address these specific challenges in modulo 1 arithmetic.
svensl
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I was wondering whether there are any simplification/rules when doing modulo 1 arithmetic.

For example: <a+b>*<c+d> = ? or <a+b>^2=?
Here, <> is the fractional part, i.e <4.2> = 0.2

There is plenty I could find on mod N arithmetic with n>1 but nothing on mod 1.

thanks for any tips.

Svensl
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
mattmns, read his post, he's obviously not just talking about integers. He's talking about the reals modulo 1, i.e. arithmetic of the fractional parts of reals.

svensl, what do you mean by "simplification rules"? For example, what could you find on mod N arithmetic?
 
AKG said:
mattmns, read his post, he's obviously not just talking about integers. He's talking about the reals modulo 1, i.e. arithmetic of the fractional parts of reals.

Woops! :redface: I knew I had to be missing something, sorry.
 
Thanks for the reply.

With modulo N arithmetic I was referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic for example.

If N=12 as in hour clock system, I could say that (13 mod 12)*(14 mod 12) = 2 = ((13*14) mod 12) = 2. This I meant by simplification. However, these rules do not work for cases for mod 1. So, (1.222 mod 1)*(5.111 mod 1) is not equal to ((0.222*0.111) mod 1). I was wondering whether there are rules for this sort of thing.

For example, I can write <a + b > = <<a>+<b>>. Again <> stands for mod 1.
Or, <-a> = 1 - <a>.

Are there any for multiplication?

thanks,
svensl
 
If N=12 as in hour clock system, I could say that (13 mod 12)*(14 mod 12) = 2 = ((13*14) mod 12) = 2. This I meant by simplification. However, these rules do not work for cases for mod 1. So, (1.222 mod 1)*(5.111 mod 1) is not equal to ((0.222*0.111) mod 1).

Yes but it's not the difference between "1" and "12" that's operating here, it's the far more fundamental difference that in one case you're doing modulo arithmetic over the integers and in the other case you're doing it over the reals.

Try doing modulo 12 arithmetic over the reals and see how many of those results still hold.
 
Thanks for pointing this out uart.

Do you know of any literature which talks about mod 1? There is a wealth of literature on equidistributed mod 1 sequences, number theory, ergodic theory...but I have not found helping me whith my problem.

Cheers,
svensl
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top