Are non-integer moduli useful in modular arithmetic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter m00npirate
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept of using non-integer moduli in modular arithmetic, particularly questioning the utility of such an approach. While traditional modular arithmetic focuses on integers, the idea of applying it to real numbers, like π, is proposed but deemed less meaningful due to the nature of divisibility. The conversation touches on how using mod π could lead to all values being equivalent, thus losing informative value. It also mentions the relevance of mod 2π in trigonometric contexts and the application of cosets in Fourier analysis. Ultimately, while non-integer moduli can be defined, their practical implications in modular arithmetic remain questionable.
m00npirate
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
I've been looking around for this, but I can't find any discussion of non-integer moduli for use in modular arithmetic. Is it not defined simply because it isn't useful? Every source I look at will say "integers a and b are congruent modulo n if blah blah blah." However, it makes just as much sense to say \pi + \sqrt{2} \equiv \sqrt{2} \hspace{7 mm}(mod \pi).

<strike> The reason I'm wondering about this is because every circle would have zero circumference and area (mod \pi) which seemed absurd. Can anyone explain? </strike>Thanks a ton!

EDIT: Just realized I was being silly, as obviously most circles will still be fine .But is there a physical way to interpret this for those circles with 0 circumference but non-zero area etc? Or is modular arithmetic just not useful here?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You say it 'makes as much sense', but does it? What would it mean? Modulo arithmetic is to do with divisibility. You are naturally moving into a field where everything divides everything else (forgetting zero for a second), so it isn't useful: everything would be equivalent to everything else; it isn't telling you anything.
 
It would make sense in the meaning of division if we define it like this (which is obviously the definition the original example implies):

a=\pi \cdot q+b, 0 \leq b &lt; \pi \Rightarrow a \equiv b (mod \pi) where a,b \in \mathbb{R}, q \in \mathbb{Z}
 
Aboslutely right, Jarle: there are ways to make mod work, though there is no reason why b should restricted to be in the range 0 to pi, unless you're making that transitive by fiat.

Normally one sees things "mod 2pi", as that is as natural period occurring when you use trig functions.

Usually, this is formally written in terms of cosets of a subgroup, in this case inside R. The group \mathbb{R}/2\pi\mathbb{Z} is the natural place to do Fourier analysis. Of course it is isomorphic to the groups \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}, and \mathbb{R}/\pi\mathbb{Z}, which can also be used - then it comes down to personal preference about what constants you want floating around. I remember someone once saying that 2pi is defined to be equal to 1 for the purposes of Fourier series. (Think Planck constant/length/time by analogy I suppose.)

I don't see why just because things differ by a multiple of pi this implies anything about a circle's physical measurements that is 'absurd'.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top