Ax≡ay (mod m) iff x≡y (mod m/(a,m))

  • Thread starter kingwinner
  • Start date
  • #1
1,270
0
note: (a,m)=gcd(a,m)

Theorem: ax≡ay (mod m) if and only if x≡y (mod m/(a,m))

And then in the middle of a certain proof later on, my textbook says:
Suppose (a,m)|b.
Then BY THE ABOVE THEOREM(?),
ax≡b (mod m) if and only if (a/(a,m))x ≡ b/(a,m) (mod m/(a,m))?

But I don't see exactly why the above theorem will give us this result.
First of all, I don't think on the RHS, b is necessarily a multiple of a.
Secondly, the theorem says we can divide the LHS and RHS by a (not (a,m)), and divide the modulus by (a,m), NOT a. But in that proof, they divide everything by (a,m) which is not what the theorem says.
Could someone please show me how to apply the theorem in a way that will lead us to this result? I really don't see how...

Is it also true that ax≡ay (mod m) if and only if
(a/(a,m))x ≡ (a/(a,m))y (mod m/(a,m))?

I'm confused...
I hope someone can explain this. Any help is much appreciated!
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,833
956
Apparently you are very confused! Are you clear on what modulo arithmetic itself is? You say " I don't think on the RHS, b is necessarily a multiple of a". Why would you expect it to be? Saying "ax= b (mod m)" does not imply that b is a multiple of 6. Only that ax-b is a multiple of n. For example, if a= 2, b= 5, and m= 7, ax= b (mod m) becomes 2x= 5 (mod 7). That is satisfied by x= 6 because 2(5)= 12= 5+ 7.
 
  • #3
841
0
note: (a,m)=gcd(a,m)

Theorem: ax≡ay (mod m) if and only if x≡y (mod m/(a,m))

And then in the middle of a certain proof later on, my textbook says:
Suppose (a,m)|b.
Then BY THE ABOVE THEOREM(?),
ax≡b (mod m) if and only if (a/(a,m))x ≡ b/(a,m) (mod m/(a,m))?

But I don't see exactly why the above theorem will give us this result.
First of all, I don't think on the RHS, b is necessarily a multiple of a.
Secondly, the theorem says we can divide the LHS and RHS by a (not (a,m)), and divide the modulus by (a,m), NOT a. But in that proof, they divide everything by (a,m) which is not what the theorem says.
Could someone please show me how to apply the theorem in a way that will lead us to this result? I really don't see how...

Is it also true that ax≡ay (mod m) if and only if
(a/(a,m))x ≡ (a/(a,m))y (mod m/(a,m))?

I'm confused...
I hope someone can explain this. Any help is much appreciated!
I think you should be aware that if a = 0 or a factor of m, then you cannot divide a out from the equation ax = ay mod m. For instance 0*5 = 0*7 mod 9 because 5 = 7 mod 1 ,i.e. mod (9/(0,9)) = mod (9/9) = mod 1 but 5 <> 7 mod 9
 
Last edited:
  • #4
1,270
0
Apparently you are very confused! Are you clear on what modulo arithmetic itself is? You say " I don't think on the RHS, b is necessarily a multiple of a". Why would you expect it to be? Saying "ax= b (mod m)" does not imply that b is a multiple of 6. Only that ax-b is a multiple of n. For example, if a= 2, b= 5, and m= 7, ax= b (mod m) becomes 2x= 5 (mod 7). That is satisfied by x= 6 because 2(5)= 12= 5+ 7.
I understand what you're saying for sure.

But the theorem says:
ax≡ay (mod m) if and only if x≡y (mod m/(a,m)).

Firstly, our congruence ax≡b (mod m) here is not of the above form, so why is the theorem even applicable?

Secondly, the theorem doesn't say that we can divide the LHS and RHS and the modulus by (a,m). The theorem says that we can divide the LHS and RHS by "a", and divide the modulus by (a,m).

I hope this clarifies my quesiton.
 
  • #5
402
1
Firstly, our congruence ax≡b (mod m) here is not of the above form
Actually, it is: you just have to write [tex]a=\left(a,m\right)\times a/\left(a,m/right)[/tex] and
[tex]b=\left(a,m\right)\times b/\left(a,m/right)[/tex].

And we may assume that b is divisible by (a,m) because, otherwise, the congruence

[tex]ax\equiv b\left({\rm mod}m)[/tex]

will not have solutions.
 
  • #6
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
I understand what you're saying for sure.

But the theorem says:
ax≡ay (mod m) if and only if x≡y (mod m/(a,m)).

Firstly, our congruence ax≡b (mod m) here is not of the above form, so why is the theorem even applicable?
Actually, it is of that form. It's a little confusing because we're using the same variable names for multiple purposes, so let me color them:
ax=ay (mod m)
ax=b (mod m)​

One way to get a match is by assigning
a = 1
x = ax
y = b


There are lots of trivial modifications you could make to allow you to match the desired form in other ways too.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Ax≡ay (mod m) iff x≡y (mod m/(a,m))

Replies
12
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
7K
Top