MHB Congruences - Rotman - Proposition 1.58 - Second Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
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 $m$.
 
##\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...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top