MHB Linear conqruence and relations problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter mehdi98
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linear Relations
AI Thread Summary
The relation R defined on the set Z, where aRb means a = ±b, is established as an equivalence relation because it is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. For the linear congruence x ≡ 3 (mod 5), the solutions are expressed as 3 + 5k, where k is an integer. For the congruence 2x ≡ 5 (mod 9), the solution involves finding the multiplicative inverse of 2 modulo 9, leading to the expression for x in terms of this inverse. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding equivalence relations and the methods for solving linear congruences. Overall, the thread provides insights into both theoretical and practical aspects of these mathematical concepts.
mehdi98
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Suppose that the relation R is defined on the set Z where aRb means a = ±b. Establish whether R is an equivalence relation giving your justifications.

Find the set of solutions of each of the linear congruence:
a) x ≡ 3 (mod 5).
b) 2x ≡ 5 (mod 9).(please write the full solutions thanks)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mehdi98 said:
Suppose that the relation R is defined on the set Z where aRb means a = ±b. Establish whether R is an equivalence relation giving your justifications.
R is an equivalence relation if R is reflexive, symmetric and transitive. The fact that R is symmetric means $\forall x,y\in\mathbb{Z}\,(x,y)\in R\implies (y,x)\in R$. For this definition of $R$ this means that whenever $x=\pm y$, we also have $y=\pm x$. Do you think this is true?

mehdi98 said:
a) x ≡ 3 (mod 5).
It's easy to see that 3, 8, 13, 18, ... give 3 as a remainder when divided by 5. Therefore, solutions are $3+5k$, $k\in\mathbb{Z}$.

mehdi98 said:
b) 2x ≡ 5 (mod 9).
We need to divide both sides by 2. Note that 2 has an inverse modulo 9, i.e., there exists a number $y$ such that $2y$ gives the remainder 1 when divided by 9. Then $2xy\equiv x(2y)\equiv x\equiv 5y\pmod{9}$.

For the future, please read the http://mathhelpboards.com/rules/, especially rules 8 and 11.
 
thank you:D and sorry
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Replies
28
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top