Playdo
- 88
- 0
This one is experimental. I'm trying to get at a notation that allows me to investigate equations where there are multiple modular operations form different bases.
Define
A natural variable x or a can take on any natural value and zero if the context allows.
And then
1) \underline{x} deal with x as a constant
2) x_{[\underline{a}]}=x mod \underline{a} equals the set of residues modulo a
3) x_{[a]}=x mod a equals the set of natural numbers since a is assumed to be a variable in this notation
4) \underline x_{[\underline{a}]}=\underline{x} mod \underline{a} is a generic way of writing one specific residue of a, the following are equivalent 3 mod 4, 7 mod 4, etc.
5) \underline x_{[a]}=\underline{x} mod a[/itex] is equivalent to the set \{0,1,...,\underline{x}\}.<br /> <br /> <br /> operations and multiple base maps.<br /> <br /> Consider x_{[\underline{a},\underline{b}]} =_{[\underline{c}]} y_{[\underline{d}]}<br /> <br /> It says first evaluate x mod a then mod b, and evaluate y mod d, then solve the resulting equation mod c.<br /> <br /> Multiplication now requires a symbol, juxtiposition no longer works. x \times_{[\underline{a}]} y = \underline{c} means x and y are natural variables so find natural numbers that can be multiplied mod a to yield c. Since the base quantifier is missing on the equals sign there may not be a solution. Whereas x \times_{[\underline{a}]} y =_{[\underline{a}]} \underline{c} means solkve the equation mod a as well.<br /> <br /> The same works for addition x +_{[\underline{a}]} y = \underline{c}<br /> <br /> The obvious question is why make such a notation? Are there any problems where solving muddled equations is necessary? Does the notation help facilitate either the understanding of the problems or their solution?
Define
A natural variable x or a can take on any natural value and zero if the context allows.
And then
1) \underline{x} deal with x as a constant
2) x_{[\underline{a}]}=x mod \underline{a} equals the set of residues modulo a
3) x_{[a]}=x mod a equals the set of natural numbers since a is assumed to be a variable in this notation
4) \underline x_{[\underline{a}]}=\underline{x} mod \underline{a} is a generic way of writing one specific residue of a, the following are equivalent 3 mod 4, 7 mod 4, etc.
5) \underline x_{[a]}=\underline{x} mod a[/itex] is equivalent to the set \{0,1,...,\underline{x}\}.<br /> <br /> <br /> operations and multiple base maps.<br /> <br /> Consider x_{[\underline{a},\underline{b}]} =_{[\underline{c}]} y_{[\underline{d}]}<br /> <br /> It says first evaluate x mod a then mod b, and evaluate y mod d, then solve the resulting equation mod c.<br /> <br /> Multiplication now requires a symbol, juxtiposition no longer works. x \times_{[\underline{a}]} y = \underline{c} means x and y are natural variables so find natural numbers that can be multiplied mod a to yield c. Since the base quantifier is missing on the equals sign there may not be a solution. Whereas x \times_{[\underline{a}]} y =_{[\underline{a}]} \underline{c} means solkve the equation mod a as well.<br /> <br /> The same works for addition x +_{[\underline{a}]} y = \underline{c}<br /> <br /> The obvious question is why make such a notation? Are there any problems where solving muddled equations is necessary? Does the notation help facilitate either the understanding of the problems or their solution?
Last edited: