Help With Proving a is Zero Divisor Mod n iff gcd(a,n)>1

  • Thread starter Thread starter SomeRandomGuy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
SomeRandomGuy
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Prove that a number a is a zero divisor mod n iff gcd(a,n)>1.

I have the proof assuming a is a zero divisor mod in => gcd(a,n)>1. However, going in the other direction has me stumped. Basically, here is all I have so far that I feel is correct:

Assume gcd(a,n)=d>1
=> da' = a and dn' = n and if x|a and x|n => x|d
Thus, there exists w,z where aw + nz = d
=> aw = d mod n.

I've tried subbing in from here. in a few different ways but I feel like it just leads me into a brick wall. Ultimately, I'm looking to get aw = 0 mod n which makes a a zero divisor.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nevermind, I believe I solved it
 
I hope this would be helpful

ok,i asked some mathematicians and they replied with this:Think about n/gcd(a,n) - let's call this b. First of all, you can be sure that b is an integer - why ? Secondly, you can be sure that if gcd(a,n) > 1 then b mod(n) is not 0 - why ? Now think about the product ab - what is ab mod(n) ? How does this help you show that a is a zero divisor mod(n) ?p.s:you can finde more help on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics
 
##\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...

Similar threads

Back
Top