Is the Proof in Dummit and Foote's Chinese Remainder Theorem Inductive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter icantadd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
icantadd
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
In Dummit and Foote on pages 265-266, a proof is given of the Chinese Remainder Theorem. They claim to proceed by induction, but I cannot see where the induction hypothesis is used.

It seems that they could proved the statement for k=2, and then reduced the statement for k>2 to k=2. Is this induction?

Thank you for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
icantadd said:
In Dummit and Foote on pages 265-266, a proof is given of the Chinese Remainder Theorem. They claim to proceed by induction, but I cannot see where the induction hypothesis is used.

It seems that they could proved the statement for k=2, and then reduced the statement for k>2 to k=2. Is this induction?

Thank you for your help.

I don't have a definite answer, but my feeling is that if your proof for values of n greater than 2 is base upon a showing that it is dependent upon the validity of the case for n = 2 then it is a form of induction.
 

Thread '##(A/\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{a}}## and its isomorphism?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Trouble understanding an online solution to an exercise in Dummit & Foote'

##\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...
View full post »

Thread 'Questions about non existence of GCDs vs (coimages, cokernels)'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Use of induction in the proof of the Chinese Remainder Theorem
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Proof by induction of block diagonal decomposition of a matrix
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Uniqueness of reduced row echelon form (proof verification)
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Prove Even # Transpositions in Identity Permutation w/ Induction & Contradiction
Replies
8
Views
4K
I Fields and Field Extensions - Dummit and Foote, Ch. 13 .... .
Replies
4
Views
2K
MHB Fields and Field Extensions - Dummit and Foote, Ch. 13 .... ....
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Proving U_1 + U_2 + ... + U_k = span (U_1 \cup U_2 \cup \ ... \ \cup U_k)
Replies
10
Views
1K
MHB Free Groups - Dummit & Fooote - Section 6.3
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Generation of Modules .... Dummit and Foote, Section 10.3 .... ....
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Proof that if T is Hermitian, eigenvectors form an orthonormal basis
Replies
3
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top