Modular Arithmetic: Solve (21999+31998+51997) Divided by 7

  • Thread starter Thread starter triac
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arithmetic
triac
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Okay, so I'm going to find the smallest positive remainder of (21999+31998+51997) divided by seven.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Well, I did like this:
23 is congruent to 1 (mod 7). Therefore, 21999= (23)1999/3 is congruent to 1 (mod 7).
33 is congruent to (-1) (mod 7). Therefore, 31998=(33)666 is congruent to (-1)666=1 (mod 7).
53 is congruent to (-1) (mod 7). Therefore, 51997=(53)665*25 is congruent to (-1)665*4 = -4 (mod 7)

So, all in all the remainder should be two. However it says in the key that it is six, and I can't see where I'm wrong. Got any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
triac said:

Homework Statement


Okay, so I'm going to find the smallest positive remainder of (21999+31998+51997) divided by seven.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Well, I did like this:
23 is congruent to 1 (mod 7). Therefore, 21999= (23)1999/3 is congruent to 1 (mod 7).
33 is congruent to (-1) (mod 7). Therefore, 31998=(33)666 is congruent to (-1)666=1 (mod 7).
53 is congruent to (-1) (mod 7). Therefore, 51997=(53)665*25 is congruent to (-1)665*4 = -4 (mod 7)

So, all in all the remainder should be two. However it says in the key that it is six, and I can't see where I'm wrong. Got any suggestions?

Here's what I get:
23 is congruent to 1 (mod 7). Therefore, 21999= (23)666*2 is congruent to 2 (mod 7) (not 1 mod 7 as you had).
33 is congruent to (-1) (mod 7). Therefore, 31998=(33)666 is congruent to (-1)666=1 (mod 7).
53 is congruent to (-1) (mod 7). Therefore, 51997=(53)665*25 is congruent to (-1)665*4 = -4 (mod 7) = 3 mod 7.

Add 'em up and you get 6 mod 7.
 
Ok, thanks a lot!
I just wonder, why is it wrong to do the way I did, why doesn't it work?
 
Hi triac! :smile:
triac said:
I just wonder, why is it wrong to do the way I did, why doesn't it work?

Because 1999/3 isn't a whole number. :wink:
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top