Defining & Proving Modulo Multiplication in $\mathbb{Z}_k$

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Multiplication
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on defining and proving modulo multiplication in the set $\mathbb{Z}_k$. The inductive definition proposed for multiplication $\cdot_k$ is established as follows: for all $x \in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $y \in \mathbb{N}_0$, the operation is defined by $x \cdot_k 0 = 0$ and $x \cdot_k (y + 1) = x \cdot_k y +_k x$. The proof by induction demonstrates that $(x \cdot y) \mod k = (x \mod k) \cdot_k (y \mod k)$ holds true, with a base case for $y=1$ and an inductive step for $y=n+1$. This establishes the correctness of the inductive definition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of modular arithmetic, specifically $\mathbb{Z}_k$
  • Familiarity with inductive proofs in mathematics
  • Knowledge of basic operations in number theory, including addition and multiplication
  • Concept of congruence and modulo operations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of modular arithmetic in $\mathbb{Z}_k$
  • Learn about inductive definitions and their applications in mathematics
  • Explore the concept of congruences and their proofs
  • Investigate further examples of inductive proofs in number theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying number theory, educators teaching modular arithmetic, and anyone interested in the foundations of mathematical proofs.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Based on the definition of $+_k$, I want to give an inductive definition for the multiplication $\cdot_k$ in $\mathbb{Z}_k$, such that for all $x\in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $y\in \mathbb{N}_0$ it holds that $$x\cdot_k y=(x\cdot y)\mod k$$

What is an inductive definition? (Wondering)

Do we write $x\cdot y=y+y+\ldots +y$ ($n$-times) and we apply each time the addition $+_k$ ? (Wondering)
I want to prove also by induction that for a $x\in \mathbb{N}_0$ it holds for all $y\in \mathbb{N}_0$ that $$(x\cdot y)\mod k=(x\mod k)\cdot_k (y\mod k)$$

We apply the induction on $y$ or not? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
I want to prove also by induction that for a $x\in \mathbb{N}_0$ it holds for all $y\in \mathbb{N}_0$ that $$(x\cdot y)\mod k=(x\mod k)\cdot_k (y\mod k)$$

We apply the induction on $y$ or not? (Wondering)

Is the induction as follows? Base case: $y=1$ : $$(x\cdot 1)\mod k=x\mod k$$ The other side is $$ (x\mod k)\cdot_k (1\mod k)=(x\mod k)\cdot_k 1=x\mod k$$ So, they are equal. Inductive Hypothesis: We suppose that it holds for $y=n$ : $$(x\cdot n)\mod k=(x\mod k)\cdot_k(n\mod k)$$ Inductive step: We will show that it holds for $y=n+1$ : $$(x\cdot (n+1))\mod k=(x\cdot n+x)\mod k=(x\cdot n)\mod k+x\mod k \ \ \overset{\text{ Inductive Hypothesis } }{ = } \ \ (x\mod k)\cdot_k (n\mod k)+x\mod k$$ The other side is $$(x\mod k)\cdot_k ((n+1)\mod k)=(x\mod k)\cdot_k (n\mod k+1)\\ =(x\mod k)\cdot_k (n\mod k)+x\mod k$$ So, they are equal.

Is this correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mathmari said:
What is an inductive definition?
Is there a reason why you can't look this up in your lecture notes or textbook? Or see Wikipedia.

mathmari said:
Do we write $x\cdot y=y+y+\ldots +y$ ($n$-times) and we apply each time the addition $+_k$ ?
No inductive definition uses ellipsis.

mathmari said:
Is the induction as follows?
Until there is a definition, it makes no sense to prove anything.
 
An inductive definition for the multiplication $\cdot_k$ in $\mathbb{Z}_k$ is the following:
\begin{align*}&x\cdot_k 0=0 \\ &x\cdot_k (y+1)=x\cdot_k y+_kx, \ y\geq 0\end{align*}
right? (Wondering)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
944
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K