Proving p Elts in $\mathbb{Z}_p$

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kindayr
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the set \(\mathbb{Z}_p\) contains exactly \(p\) elements, where \(p\) is an integer greater than 1. The participants explore the properties of equivalence classes defined by a relation based on divisibility by \(p\).

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to show that if \(\mathbb{Z}_p\) has fewer than \(p\) elements, it would contradict the properties of equivalence relations. Other participants suggest proving that \(\mathbb{Z}_p\) can be represented by the classes \([0], [1], \ldots, [p-1]\) and outline specific points to demonstrate this.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some providing hints and guidance. The original poster expresses appreciation for the suggestions and indicates progress in their understanding. There is no explicit consensus yet, but the discussion is moving towards a clearer approach.

Contextual Notes

There are references to the need for proving specific properties of equivalence classes and the implications of the relation defined on \(\mathbb{Z}\). The original poster also mentions feeling that their initial approach may be overly complicated.

Kindayr
Messages
159
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Fix an integer [itex]p>1[/itex]. Prove that [itex]\mathbb Z_{p}[/itex] has exactly [itex]p[/itex] elements.

Homework Equations


Define the relation [itex]\equiv[/itex] on [itex]\mathbb Z[/itex] by setting [itex]a\equiv b[/itex] iff [itex]p|b-a[/itex]. (We have shown [itex]\equiv[/itex] to be an equivalence relation on [itex]\mathbb Z[/itex]). Let [itex]\mathbb Z_{p}=\{[a]:a\in\mathbb Z\}[/itex], where [itex][a]=\{b\in\mathbb Z:a\equiv b\}[/itex].

The Attempt at a Solution


I've unsuccessfully tried to show that if it had less than [itex]p[/itex] elements, then the union of the equivalence classes would not 'fill' [itex]\mathbb Z[/itex], and so [itex]\equiv[/itex] would not partition [itex]\mathbb Z[/itex], and so it would not be an equivalence relation: a contradiction. But I just can't get there, and I feel that that is much more of a difficult way to go about, and that there is a much easier route, any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe you can try to prove something stronger, namely that

[tex]\mathbb{Z}_p=\{[0],[1],...,[p-1]\}[/tex]

So there are two things to prove here:
- If [itex]a\in \mathbb{Z}[/itex], then [a]= for [itex]0\leq b\leq p-1[/itex].
- If [itex]0\leq a,b\leq p-1[/itex] and if [a]=, then a=b

Do you agree that this is what you need to prove?
 
Yes I agree those two points prove what is necessary. I'll have a go:

Let [itex]a\in\mathbb Z[/itex]. We know that [itex]a=np+r[/itex]. Note that [itex]0\leq r\leq p-1[/itex] (if i have to prove this I will). Then we have [itex]|r-a|=np\implies \frac{|r-a|}{p}=n\in\mathbb Z[/itex]. So we have [itex]p|r-a[/itex], so [itex]a\in[r][/itex], as required.

Let [itex]0\leq a,b\leq p-1[/itex] and suppose [itex][a]=[/itex] with [itex]a\neq b[/itex]. Then we have [itex]p|b-a\implies |b-a|=np[/itex]. Since [itex]a\neq b\implies0<|b-a|[/itex], it follows that [itex]0<np\implies n\neq 0[/itex]. This tells us that the distance between [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] is a non-zero integer multiple of [itex]p[/itex]. Note [itex]a,b[/itex] are interchangeable without loss of generality. We know [itex]0\leq a\leq p-1[/itex] and [itex]b=np+a[/itex], so it follows that [tex]0\leq a\leq p-1\implies np\leq a+np\leq np+p-1\implies p-1<np\leq b\leq (n+1)p-1,[/tex] with [itex]n>0[/itex]: a contradiction. (EDIT: Made stronger conclusion)

Does that work? Your hints gave me a lot of help, thank you for getting my mind off my previous proof.
 
Last edited:
That seems to work fine! Good job! :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K