How can mathematical induction be used to prove a modular arithmetic problem?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bipolarity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arithmetic
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 3K views
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
I'm trying to prove something in modular arithmetic that I came upon across my studies in comp sci. Consider a set of natural numbers [itex]{n_{1},n_{2},n_{3},...n_{k}}[/itex]

Consider two more natural numbers [itex]m[/itex] and [itex]p[/itex] such that

[tex](\sum^{k}_{i=1}n_{i} ) \ mod \ m = p[/tex]

Now prove that

[itex]((((n_{1} \ mod \ m + n_{2}) \ mod \ m + n_{3}) \ mod \ m + n_{4}) \ mod \ m + ... + n_{k}) \ mod \ m = p[/itex]

All help would be appreciated.

BiP
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey bipolarity.

I'm just unsure about what the modulus term is. For example is it (a mod (m + n2)) or is it a mod m + n2 etc.
 
chiro said:
I'm just unsure about what the modulus term is. For example is it (a mod (m + n2)) or is it a mod m + n2 etc.
I think he means:

[itex]mod_m( ... (mod_m( mod_m(n_{1}) + n_{2})) ... + n_{k})[/itex]
 
Sorry! Thanks rcgldr for clarifying what I meant.
I meant the divisor in the modulus operator is always 'm'.

So basically you are adding the next number, then taking the remainder after dividing by m. Then again you are adding the next number, then taking the remainder after dividing by m. You do this until you run out of numbers, at which point you finally take the remainder after dividing by m. The final answer should be 'p'. But I'm trying to prove it.

BiP
 
Bipolarity said:
Sorry! Thanks rcgldr for clarifying what I meant.
I meant the divisor in the modulus operator is always 'm'.

So basically you are adding the next number, then taking the remainder after dividing by m. Then again you are adding the next number, then taking the remainder after dividing by m. You do this until you run out of numbers, at which point you finally take the remainder after dividing by m. The final answer should be 'p'. But I'm trying to prove it.

BiP

Thanks Bipolarity.

This looks like a good candidate for mathematical induction. The first case is trivial because n1 MOD m and n1 MOD m are the same so proven for n = 1.

I think I know how you could do it but I'll ask you for your thoughts and any work that you have for solving the problem in your own terms (we encourage that highly here on PF).