Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quick questions about modular arithmetic

  1. May 24, 2005 #1
    [tex]99999^{99} + 1[/tex]
    As [tex]99999 \equiv[/tex]24[tex](mod \25)[/tex]
    Can I say then:
    [tex]99999^{99} + 1 \equiv[/tex]24[tex]^{99} + 1(mod \25)[/tex], or is it
    [tex]99999^{99} + 1 \equiv[/tex]24[tex]^{99}(mod \25) + 1[/tex],
    or are these two the same things?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 24, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This one is standard. People would probably understand the second, but the usual format is to write the mod at the end.
  4. May 24, 2005 #3
    oh ok, i was just wondering if the two were the same. I was uncertain if by moving the +1 before the mod5 it would change the meaning. Awesome, well then that makes this question a lot easier now. Thanks :D
  5. May 25, 2005 #4
    Another quick question.

    Are the following two congruencies the same?
    1. [tex]24^{99} + 1 \equiv 0 \mod \25[/tex]
    2. [tex]24^{99} + 1 \mod \25 \equiv 0 \mod \25[/tex]

    I am trying to show that a number is divisible by 25, and I found that 25 can be written in terms expressed in equation #1. And I found that number that I am trying to divide by 25 can be expressed in terms expressed in equation #2.

    I thought I finished the proof but now that I am looking at it, I am unsure about this one thing.
  6. May 25, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    When you write 25 don't write it \25 or the 5 just shows up, write it normally, e.g:

    [tex]24^{99} + 1 \equiv 0 \mod 25[/tex]


    [tex]24^{99} + 1 \mod 25 \equiv 0 \mod 25[/tex]

    There two statements are the same, I think you miss the point though. Something like:

    [tex]24^{99} + 1 \mod 37 \equiv 0 \mod 25[/tex]

    Woule make not really make that much sense, so amoung other reasons there is no reasons to write the mod twice.
  7. May 25, 2005 #6
    Okay. Because I was trying to show that equation #2 and #1 are equivalent.

    So they are right? LOL sorry, I'm just very uncertain about myself.
  8. May 25, 2005 #7
    Well, people tend to view congruence defined as a ternary relation:

    [tex]x \equiv y \mod n \overset{def}{\Longleftrightarrow} n|x-y.[/tex]

    Sometimes one omits the modulo part, but it is still understood that we're dealing with modulo arithmetic by using the equivalence sign [tex]\equiv[/tex], instead of an equality sign. Another way of stating a congruence [tex]x \equiv y \mod n[/tex] is by saying that [tex]x[/tex] and [tex]y[/tex] belong to the same residue class (look this up on mathworld.wolfram.com). That is

    [tex]x \equiv y \mod n \Leftrightarrow [x]_n = [y]_n[/tex]

    So, your equation 2. states (with the missing 2 from 25) that

    [tex][[25^{99}+1]_{25}]_{25} = [0]_{25}[/tex]
  9. May 26, 2005 #8
    Remember Matt Grime's post in your other thread. You are trying to show that
    24^99 +1 = 0 mod 25.
    but 24^99 +1 = (-1)^25 +1 = -1+1 = 0 mod 25, since 24=-1 mod 25 and since -1 raised to an odd power is -1. Q.E.D.
  10. May 26, 2005 #9
    Yea, thats exactly how I did it Ramsey :D Sorry, I should of concluded this thread by mentioning that. Thanks for another helpful response though. I appreciate it.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Quick questions about modular arithmetic
  1. Modular arithmetic (Replies: 11)

  2. Modular arithmetic (Replies: 1)

  3. Modular arithmetic (Replies: 4)