MHB Congruences - Rotman - Proposition 1.58 - Second Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the proof of Proposition 1.58 from Rotman's "A First Course in Abstract Algebra," specifically part (iii). The key point is the implication that if \( a \equiv b \text{ mod } m \), then \( r \equiv r' \text{ mod } m \) leads to \( r = r' \) based on part (ii) of the proposition. The user queries the contrapositive relationship and seeks clarification on the negative of the inequality \( 0 \le r' < r < m \). It is concluded that since both \( r \) and \( r' \) are non-negative integers less than \( m \), the condition \( m | (r - r') \) holds true only if \( r = r' \). Understanding these relationships is crucial for grasping the proof's logic.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Joseph J.Rotman's book, A First Course in Abstract Algebra.

I am currently focused on Section 1.5 Congruences.

I need help with the proof of Proposition 1.58 part (iii) ...

Proposition 1.58 reads as follows:View attachment 4523
View attachment 4524

In the above text we read the following:" ... ... Therefore, if $$a \equiv b \text{ mod } m$$, then $$a - b = 0 \text{ mod } m$$, hence$$ r - r' \equiv 0 \text{ mod } m$$, hence $$r - r' \equiv 0 \text{ mod } m$$, and $$r \equiv r' \text{ mod } m$$; by part (ii), $$r = r'$$. ... ... "


My question is ... how exactly does it follow from part (ii) of Proposition 1.58 that $$r = r'$$ ...Note: I suspect Rotman is asking us to use the contrapositive of (ii) ... in other words the negative of $$r \nequiv r' \text{ mod m }$$ ( which is presumably $$r \equiv r'$$ ) implies the negative of $$0 \le r' \lt r \lt m$$ ... but what exactly is the negative of $$0 \le r' \lt r \lt m$$?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Joseph J.Rotman's book, A First Course in Abstract Algebra.

I am currently focused on Section 1.5 Congruences.

I need help with the proof of Proposition 1.58 part (iii) ...

Proposition 1.58 reads as follows:In the above text we read the following:" ... ... Therefore, if $$a \equiv b \text{ mod } m$$, then $$a - b = 0 \text{ mod } m$$, hence$$ r - r' \equiv 0 \text{ mod } m$$, hence $$r - r' \equiv 0 \text{ mod } m$$, and $$r \equiv r' \text{ mod } m$$; by part (ii), $$r = r'$$. ... ... "


My question is ... how exactly does it follow from part (ii) of Proposition 1.58 that $$r = r'$$ ...Note: I suspect Rotman is asking us to use the contrapositive of (ii) ... in other words the negative of $$r \nequiv r' \text{ mod m }$$ ( which is presumably $$r \equiv r'$$ ) implies the negative of $$0 \le r' \lt r \lt m$$ ... but what exactly is the negative of $$0 \le r' \lt r \lt m$$?
Since both $r$ and $r'$ are non-negative integers which are strictly less than $m$, we can have $m|(r-r')$ only if $r=r'$.Try this with small values of $m$.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K