Can Muddled Equations and Modular Operations Enhance Problem Solving?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Playdo
  • Start date Start date
Playdo
Messages
88
Reaction score
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?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Implications of multiple base operations.

1) x_{[\underline{a},\underline{b}]}=x if x<a and x<b

2) x_{[\underline{a},\underline{b}]}=x mod \underline{a} is x moda < b

and of course it is always true that it equals x mod a mod b, but the operations may not actually alter x. In fact it must be true that if a and b are realtively prime then there exist x such that x mod a mod b is equal to every residue of b. But if a and b have common divisors then classes of residues in mod a are mapped to specific classes mod b. for instance consider a=6 and b=3, then

N -> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

mod 6 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0

mod 3 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

{0,3} mod 6 goes to {0} mod 3
{1,4} mod 6 goes to {1} mod 3
{2,5} mod 6 goes to {2} mod 3


Order of operations matters since taking mod 3 first gives

N -> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

mod 3 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

mod 6 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

{0} mod 3 goes to {0} mod 6
{1} mod 3 goes to {1} mod 6
{2} mod 3 goes to {2} mod 6

The notion reminds me of permutations as taught in a first course in Abstract Algebra.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top