MHB Congruences - Rotman - Proposition 1.58

  • 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 (ii) ...

Proposition 1.58 reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4521
View attachment 4522In the above text ... specifically, in the proof of Part (ii) we read:

" ... ... (ii) If $$r = r' \text{ mod } m$$, then $$m \mid (r - r')$$ and $$m \le r - r'$$ . ... ... "


Can someone show me precisely and formally how $$r = r' \text{ mod } m$$ implies that $$m \le r - r'$$ ...

It seems quite plausible ... but how do we formally and rigorously show this ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If $m>0$ and $n\ge0$ are integers, then $m\mid n$ means that $n=km$ for some nonnegative integer $k$. If $k=0$, then $n=0$; if $k\ge1$, then $n\ge m$. Therefore, if $r\equiv r'\pmod{m}$, then $m\mid (r-r')$ and therefore either $r-r'=0$ or $r-r'\ge m$. The first option is impossible because by assumption $r'<r$, and the second option is impossible because $r<m$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
If $m>0$ and $n\ge0$ are integers, then $m\mid n$ means that $n=km$ for some nonnegative integer $k$. If $k=0$, then $n=0$; if $k\ge1$, then $n\ge m$. Therefore, if $r\equiv r'\pmod{m}$, then $m\mid (r-r')$ and therefore either $r-r'=0$ or $r-r'\ge m$. The first option is impossible because by assumption $r'<r$, and the second option is impossible because $r<m$.

Thanks Evgeny ... I very much appreciate your help ...

Peter
 
##\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