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

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on defining and proving properties of modulo multiplication in the set of integers modulo \( k \), denoted as \( \mathbb{Z}_k \). Participants explore inductive definitions and proofs related to multiplication, specifically how to express multiplication in terms of addition and how to prove certain properties using mathematical induction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes an inductive definition for multiplication \( \cdot_k \) in \( \mathbb{Z}_k \) based on the definition of addition \( +_k \), questioning how to express multiplication using addition and whether induction should be applied on \( y \).
  • Another participant suggests a specific inductive proof structure for the property \( (x\cdot y)\mod k=(x\mod k)\cdot_k (y\mod k) \), detailing the base case and inductive step, while seeking validation of their approach.
  • A different participant questions the need for an inductive definition and suggests that without a clear definition, proving properties may be premature.
  • Another participant provides a proposed inductive definition for multiplication in \( \mathbb{Z}_k \), confirming the structure of the definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding inductive definitions and proofs. There is no consensus on the best approach to defining multiplication or the validity of the proposed proofs, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and the application of induction, highlighting a potential lack of clarity in the foundational concepts necessary for the discussion.

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
1K
  • · 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