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

icantadd · Feb 15, 2010

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.

ramsey2879 · Feb 16, 2010

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.

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

Discussion

Similar threads

Undergrad Use of induction in the proof of the Chinese Remainder Theorem

About a variant of the Chinese Remainder Theorem

Graduate Generalization of Chinese Remainder Theorem

Finding Integer with Chinese Remainder Theorem

Graduate How do I use Chinese remainder theorem to solve for x mod 683 in Cryptography?

Graduate Chinese Remainder Theorem, Solving For Multiplicative Inverses

Graduate The Chinese Remainder Theorem for moduli that aren't relatively prime

Graduate Find and Test Primes using the Chinese Remainder Theorem and Binary Search

Graduate Proving the Chinese Remainder Theorem for Reduced Residues Modulo mn

Chinese Remainder theorem for 2 congruences