MHB Multiplying in Z/mZ: Solving m=3 & m=7 Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fernando Revilla
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
In the discussion about multiplying in Z/mZ for m=3 and m=7, it is established that Z/mZ is a field when m is prime. Specifically, for m=7, the structure is confirmed as a field because there are no divisors of zero, which is proven through the relationship between multiples and prime factors. The discussion also provides examples of multiplicative inverses in Z/7Z, illustrating the field properties. In contrast, m=3 is similarly treated, reinforcing that both cases involve prime numbers, thus confirming their status as fields. The key takeaway is that Z/mZ is a field if m is prime, with practical examples provided for clarity.
Fernando Revilla
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
631
Reaction score
0
I quote a question from Yahoo! Answers

Multiply in Z\mZ question: m= 3, 7 also which m is Z/mZ a field? m=7? m=3? show some steps.?
multiply in Z\mZ
question: m= 3, 7 also which m is Z/mZ a field?
m=7?
m=3?

I have given a link to the topic there so the OP can see my response.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I suppose you want to prove that if $m$ prime, then $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ is a field. For all $m\geq 2$ integer, we know that $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}=\{\bar{0},\bar{1},\ldots,\overline{m-1}\}$ is a finite, conmutative and unitary ring. But we also know that a finite integral domain is a field, so we only need to prove that if $m$ prime, there are no divisors of zero.

Suppose $\bar{k}\bar{s}=\bar{0}$, then $ks$ is multiple of $m$ or equivalently $m|ks$. If $m$ prime, $m|k$ or $m|s$ which implies $\bar{k}=\bar{0}$ or $\bar{s}=\bar{0}$.

For example, in the particular case $m=7$ the inverses are
$$(\bar{1})^{-1}=\bar{1},\;(\bar{2})^{-1}=\bar{4},\;(\bar{3})^{-1}=\bar{5},\;(\bar{4})^{-1}=\bar{2},\;(\bar{5})^{-1}=\bar{3},\;(\bar{6})^{-1}=\bar{6}$$
 
Thread 'Erroneously  finding discrepancy in transpose rule'
Obviously, there is something elementary I am missing here. To form the transpose of a matrix, one exchanges rows and columns, so the transpose of a scalar, considered as (or isomorphic to) a one-entry matrix, should stay the same, including if the scalar is a complex number. On the other hand, in the isomorphism between the complex plane and the real plane, a complex number a+bi corresponds to a matrix in the real plane; taking the transpose we get which then corresponds to a-bi...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K