Set Theory, Can you check to see if this is right, Is AoA3 a parition of Z?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around set theory, specifically examining whether the sets A0, A1, A2, and A3 form a partition of the integers Z based on the quotient-remainder theorem. Participants explore the implications of representing integers in the forms n = 4k, n = 4k+1, n = 4k+2, and n = 4k+3.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the definitions of the sets and whether they can overlap, questioning if n = 4k+3 is redundant given the other forms. They also explore the implications of the quotient-remainder theorem and its application to the problem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and clarifications regarding the properties of the sets. Some have offered reasoning to support their views, while others are questioning the assumptions made about the nature of the sets and their disjointness.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on ensuring that the sets do not contain duplicated integers, as this is essential for them to be considered a partition of Z. Participants are also navigating the definitions and implications of the quotient-remainder theorem in relation to the problem.

mr_coffee
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone.

I think i have this right but im' not 100% sure due to the last set, A_3

Here is the problem:
http://suprfile.com/src/1/3m5fyjg/lastscan.jpg

Here is my answer:
Yes. By the quotient-remainder theorem, every integer n can be represented in exactly one of the three forms.
n = 4k or n = 4k+1 or n = 4k+2, for some integer k.
This implies that no integer can be in any two of the sets A0, A1, A2, or A3. So A0, A1, A2, and A3 are mutually disjoint. It also implies that every integer is in one of the sets A0, A1, A3, and A4. So Z = A_0 \bigcup A_1 \bigcup A_2 \bigcup A_3.

But what makes me question myself is they have A_3 such that n = 4k+3, which is just another odd integer...meaning if all integers can be expressed by n = 4k or n = 4k+1 or n = 4k+2, does that mean n = 4k+3 is redudnant and it will contain a duplicated number that n = 4k or n = 4k+1 or n = 4k+2 has already formed? If this is the case then this false because for
Z = A_0 \bigcup A_1 \bigcup A_2 \bigcup A_3.
to be true, none of the partions are allowed to have duplicated numbers.

Any help would be great, thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what you're asking. All numbers of the form 3k+3 are also of the form 3k. But this doesn't happen with 4k+3.
 
Oops i accidently had 3k's where I wanted 4k's. I edited it now.

I'm trying to figure out, if n = 4k, n = 4k+1, n = 4k+2, n = 4k+3, if any of these numbers would repeat themsevles in a set, if they would then this statemnt would be false, if not then it would be true.

such as...
let k = 0;
n = 4k, n = 4k+1, n = 4k+2, n = 4k+3,
n = 0, n = 1, n = 2, n = 3
k = 1
n = 4, n = 5, n = 6, n = 7
k = 2
n = 8, n = 9, n = 10, n = 11

So it looks like these are going to keep going and never duplicate a number, So that's what I'm checking to see if my answer is right up there when i said:

Yes. By the quotient-remainder theorem, every integer n can be represented in exactly one of the three forms.
n = 4k or n = 4k+1 or n = 4k+2, for some integer k.
This implies that no integer can be in any two of the sets A0, A1, A2, or A3. So A0, A1, A2, and A3 are mutually disjoint. It also implies that every integer is in one of the sets A0, A1, A3, and A4.
 
Ok. Another way is just assume, say, n=4k+1=4l+3. Then 4(k-l)=2, a contradiction, since 4 doesn't divide 2.
 
I don't have to prove this byinduction, so could I write what you said and just add alittle more like...

Let n = 4k+1 = 4l+3, where k and l are integers.
Then 4(k-l) = 2 = (k-l) = 1/2. 1/2 is not an integer which is a contradiction therefore, {A_0, A_1, A_2, A_3} is not a parition of Z.

I do see this contradicts the orginal statemnt because they said n is in Z which is all integers, and 1/2 is not an integer is that what your saying?

I was thinking they would want me to prove this by it violating some rule of sets, like all sets must be different if they are paritioned, meaning you can;t have A1 = {1,2,3,4} A2={5,6,7,8}, A3 ={8,9,10,11} But they never told me to prove it that way so this will work too, if I'm understanding you correctly.
 
All I was showing was that the sets A1 and A3 are disjoint. The contradiction was based on the assumption that the k in the definition of these sets was an integer, and has nothing to do with whether the sets form a partition of Z. What exactly is the quotient-remainder theorem, and how have you tried to use it?
 
Status, Sorry about the delayed responce,
The quotient-remainder theorem states given any inteer n and positive integer d, there exists unique integers q and r such that
n = dq + r and 0 <= r < d

if u let d = 4, this implies that here exists an integer quotient q and a remainder r such that
n = dq + r and 0 <= r < 4, but the only nonnegative remainders r that are less than 4 are 0, 1, 2, and 3. Hence
n = 4q or n = 4q + 1 or n = 4q + 2 or n = 4q+3

for some integer q.So wouldn't this make it true?
Here is my answer:
Yes. By the quotient-remainder theorem, every integer n can be represented in exactly one of the three forms.
n = 4k or n = 4k+1 or n = 4k+2 or 4k + 3 for some integer k.
This implies that no integer can be in any two of the sets A0, A1, A2, or A3. So A0, A1, A2, and A3 are mutually disjoint. It also implies that every integer is in one of the sets A0, A1, A3, and A4.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
2K