How Do You Solve 4x=7 (mod 45) Using Remodularization Concepts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter oliver$
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
To solve the equation 4x=7 (mod 45), it is confirmed that solutions exist since the gcd(4, 45) equals 1, which divides 7. The process involves finding the multiplicative inverse of 4 modulo 45, which is determined to be 11, leading to the solution x=13. Another solution is found by considering 4x=112 (mod 180), resulting in x=28. The discussion highlights the importance of correctly applying modular arithmetic concepts and cautions against relying on flawed methods that may yield incorrect answers. Ultimately, using Euclid's algorithm is recommended for finding multiplicative inverses effectively.
oliver$
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
i'm not sure if i understand this concept at all.
for finding all the solutions (mod 45) of

4x=7 (mod 45), we know that solutions exist, b/c the gcd (4, 45)=1 which divides 7.
then
4x= [52,97,112,157] (mod 45*4)
4x= 52 (mod 180) and 4x=112(mod 180).
these reduce to x=13 (mod 45) and x=28 (mod 45) respectively.
then x=13, 28 (mod 45)?

i feel like I'm missing some important step or piece of the concept.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is certainly something you've not quite grasped. In particular you may not say that since

a=b mod p

then

a=b+rp mod ap


this just is not going to help even if it were true, which it isn't guaranteed to be, though by some *fluke* it may give an answer.

What you need to do is find the multiplicatice inverse of 4 modulo 45.

since 4*11=-1 mod 45

you should be able to solve it from there.
 
i tried it your way, finding the multiplicative inverse, and got x=13.

Then I tried my method with 4x= 0 (mod 45) to get x=0, which works with your method as well. i don't know where i got the formula. but thank you. i'd rather do the problem right than do it by fluke.
 
You've just introduced new answers - a little like squaring. I've not chekced to see if your method must produce the correct answer, but it vertainly must produce incorrect ones, and it isn't nec. clear whioh of them is or insn't going to be correct without substituting back.

To find multiplicative inverses one only needs to use eulcid's algorithm.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
18K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K