MHB Group of units - Rotman - page 36 - Proposition 1.52

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Units
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Joseph Rotman's book Advanced Modern Algebra.

I need help in fully understanding the proof of Proposition 1.52 on page 36.

Proposition 1.52 and its proof reads as follows:

View attachment 2676
The part of the proof on which I need help/clarification is Rotman's argument where he establishes that each $$ r \in U( \mathbb{I}_m ) $$ has an inverse in $$ U( \mathbb{I}_m ) $$.

As can be seen in the text above Rotman's argument (which I must say confuses me) reads as follows:

"If $$ (a,m) = 1 $$ then $$ [a][x] = 1 $$ can be solved for x in $$ \mathbb{I}_m $$. Now (x,m) = 1 for rx + sm = 1 for some integer s, and so (x,m) = 1. Hence $$ [x] \in U( \mathbb{I}_m ) $$, and so each $$ r \in U( \mathbb{I}_m ) $$ has an inverse in $$ U( \mathbb{I}_m ) $$."

I confess I cannot follow Rotman's argument above! (maybe MHB members will find it clearer than I do?)

Can someone please provide a clear and rigorous restatement of Rotman's argument regarding inverses in $$ U( \mathbb{I}_m ) $$.

Particular points of confusion are as follows:

1. Rotman writes: "If $$ (a,m) = 1 $$ then $$ [a][x] = 1 $$ can be solved for x in $$ \mathbb{I}_m $$." - I cannot see exactly why this follows:

2. Rotman writes: "Now (x,m) = 1 for rx + sm = 1 for some integer s, and so (x,m) = 1." - I do not follow this statement at all: indeed I think it may be badly expressed whatever he means ... ...

3. I do not follow the rest of his statements - probably because I do not follow 1 and 2 above.

Help and clarification would be appreciated

Peter

Note that Rotman uses the symbol $$\mathbb{I}_m$$ for $$ \mathbb{Z}/ m \mathbb{Z} $$.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, what Rotman is saying is:

$[k] \in \Bbb Z_m$ is a unit if and only if $\text{gcd}(k,m) = 1$.

$(\impliedby)$: Suppose $\text{gcd}(k,m) = 1$. Using the (extended) Euclidean algorithm for finding the gcd, we can find integers $a,b$ such that:

$ak + bm = 1$ (Bezout's Identity).

If we reduce this equation mod $m$, we get:

$[a][k] + [0] = [a][k] + [0] = [a][k] = [1]$.

Evidently, then, $[a]$ is an inverse for $[k]$ in $\Bbb Z_m$.

$(\implies)$: On the other hand, suppose $[k]$ is a unit. This means that for some $ \in \Bbb Z_m$ we have:

$[k] = [1]$.

This means that:

$(u + am)(k + bm) = 1 + cm$, for some integers $a,b,c$. It then follows that:

$uk + (ak + bu + abm - c)m = 1$, which shows that $\text{gcd}(k,m) = 1$.

************

I will show you how we actually DO this, for a specific $k$ and $m$. Suppose $m = 24$ and $k = 7$. We want to show $[7]$ is a unit. To do so, we need to find its inverse. Note that $\text{gcd}(7,24) = 1$, so we ought to be able to do this.

What we want to do, is find $a,b$ so that $7a + 24b = 1$. So this is what we do:

24 = 3*7 + 3
7 = 3*2 + 1

therefore:

1 = 7 - 6 = 7 - 3*2 = 7 - (24 - 3*7)*2 = 7 - 2*24 + 6*7 = 7*7 + (-2)*24

so $a = 7$ and $b = -2$. We don't need $b$, we just want $a$, and since $0 \leq 7< 24$, we don't even need to reduce.

And indeed: $[7]*[7] = [49] = [48] + [1] = [2*24] + [1] = [2][24] + [1] = [2][0] + [1] = [0] + [1] = [1]$.

Now Rotman shows closure of $U(\Bbb Z_m)$ by showing if $\text{gcd}(k,m) = 1$ and $\text{gcd}(k',m) = 1$, then:

$\text{gcd}(kk',m) = 1$.

but I find it easier to note that if:

$[a][k] = [1]$ and $[a'][k'] = [1]$, then: $[aa'][k][k'] = [aa'kk'] = [(ak)(a'k')] = [ak][a'k'] = ([a][k])([a'][k']) = [1][1] = [1]$

so that evidently $[aa']$ is an inverse for $[k][k']$, so the product of two units is again a unit.

Again, let's use $m = 24$ as an example. Clearly $[5]$ is also a unit. Note that $[5]$ is its own inverse:

$[5][5] = [25] = [1] + [24] = [1] + [0] = [1]$.

What we have done above says that $[5][7] = [35] = [11]$ is also a unit, with inverse:

$[5*7] = [35] = [11]$.

We verify:

$[11][11] = [121] = [1] + [120] = [1] + [5][24] = [1] + [5][0] = [1] + [0] = [1]$.
 
Deveno said:
Ok, what Rotman is saying is:

$[k] \in \Bbb Z_m$ is a unit if and only if $\text{gcd}(k,m) = 1$.

$(\impliedby)$: Suppose $\text{gcd}(k,m) = 1$. Using the (extended) Euclidean algorithm for finding the gcd, we can find integers $a,b$ such that:

$ak + bm = 1$ (Bezout's Identity).

If we reduce this equation mod $m$, we get:

$[a][k] + [0] = [a][k] + [0] = [a][k] = [1]$.

Evidently, then, $[a]$ is an inverse for $[k]$ in $\Bbb Z_m$.

$(\implies)$: On the other hand, suppose $[k]$ is a unit. This means that for some $ \in \Bbb Z_m$ we have:

$[k] = [1]$.

This means that:

$(u + am)(k + bm) = 1 + cm$, for some integers $a,b,c$. It then follows that:

$uk + (ak + bu + abm - c)m = 1$, which shows that $\text{gcd}(k,m) = 1$.

************

I will show you how we actually DO this, for a specific $k$ and $m$. Suppose $m = 24$ and $k = 7$. We want to show $[7]$ is a unit. To do so, we need to find its inverse. Note that $\text{gcd}(7,24) = 1$, so we ought to be able to do this.

What we want to do, is find $a,b$ so that $7a + 24b = 1$. So this is what we do:

24 = 3*7 + 3
7 = 3*2 + 1

therefore:

1 = 7 - 6 = 7 - 3*2 = 7 - (24 - 3*7)*2 = 7 - 2*24 + 6*7 = 7*7 + (-2)*24

so $a = 7$ and $b = -2$. We don't need $b$, we just want $a$, and since $0 \leq 7< 24$, we don't even need to reduce.

And indeed: $[7]*[7] = [49] = [48] + [1] = [2*24] + [1] = [2][24] + [1] = [2][0] + [1] = [0] + [1] = [1]$.

Now Rotman shows closure of $U(\Bbb Z_m)$ by showing if $\text{gcd}(k,m) = 1$ and $\text{gcd}(k',m) = 1$, then:

$\text{gcd}(kk',m) = 1$.

but I find it easier to note that if:

$[a][k] = [1]$ and $[a'][k'] = [1]$, then: $[aa'][k][k'] = [aa'kk'] = [(ak)(a'k')] = [ak][a'k'] = ([a][k])([a'][k']) = [1][1] = [1]$

so that evidently $[aa']$ is an inverse for $[k][k']$, so the product of two units is again a unit.

Again, let's use $m = 24$ as an example. Clearly $[5]$ is also a unit. Note that $[5]$ is its own inverse:

$[5][5] = [25] = [1] + [24] = [1] + [0] = [1]$.

What we have done above says that $[5][7] = [35] = [11]$ is also a unit, with inverse:

$[5*7] = [35] = [11]$.

We verify:

$[11][11] = [121] = [1] + [120] = [1] + [5][24] = [1] + [5][0] = [1] + [0] = [1]$.
Thanks Deveno ... just skimmed through your post and am now working through it in detail to ensure I fully understand what you have said ...

From my brief read, your post is extremely clear and helpful (especially since it includes a concrete example!) ... ... so if you ever write a book, then please let me know ... it would likely be so much more easy to follow than the extant texts ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 
Thread 'Derivation of equations of stress tensor transformation'
Hello ! I derived equations of stress tensor 2D transformation. Some details: I have plane ABCD in two cases (see top on the pic) and I know tensor components for case 1 only. Only plane ABCD rotate in two cases (top of the picture) but not coordinate system. Coordinate system rotates only on the bottom of picture. I want to obtain expression that connects tensor for case 1 and tensor for case 2. My attempt: Are these equations correct? Is there more easier expression for stress tensor...
Back
Top