I Show that you can find d and b s.t pd-bq=1 , p and q are coprime- GCF

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter binbagsss
  • Start date Start date
binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
Context probably irrelevant but modular forms- to show that all rational numbers can be mapped to ##\infty##) that is there exists a ## \gamma = ( a b c d) ##, sorry that's a 2x2 matrix, ## \in SL_2(Z) ## with ## det (\gamma) = ad-bc=1 ## s.t ## \gamma . t = at+b/ct+d = \infty ##, where take ## t= r ## , r a rational number. )

So I'm at the stage where I am just stuck on showing that ## p ## and ## q ## co prime implies that ## b ## and ## d ## can be found s.t ## pd-bq=1 ## , b and d integer.

I'm not sure how to do this? I think the argument should be obvious?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Simpy divide ##p## by ##q##.
 
fresh_42 said:
Simpy divide ##p## by ##q##.

##(p/q) d - b =1 ## , now what?
 
It's called Bézout's identity which allows to write the greatest common divisor ##d## of two integers ##p,q## in the form ##d= pd + dq##.
The proof uses the Euclidean algorithm and the ordering of ##\mathbb{Z}##.
 
binbagsss said:
Context probably irrelevant but modular forms- to show that all rational numbers can be mapped to ##\infty##) that is there exists a ## \gamma = ( a b c d) ##, sorry that's a 2x2 matrix, ## \in SL_2(Z) ## with ## det (\gamma) = ad-bc=1 ## s.t ## \gamma . t = at+b/ct+d = \infty ##, where take ## t= r ## , r a rational number. )

So I'm at the stage where I am just stuck on showing that ## p ## and ## q ## co prime implies that ## b ## and ## d ## can be found s.t ## pd-bq=1 ## , b and d integer.

I'm not sure how to do this? I think the argument should be obvious?

Your question is immediately answered by Bezout's theorem:

##Gcf(a,b) = d \iff \exists m,n \in \mathbb{Z}: ma + nb = d##. Simply set ##d = 1##. To prove this, one can use the Euclidean algorithm backwards.

To illustrate with an example:

##Gcf(17,3) = 1##

##17 = 3*5 + 2##
##5 = 2*2 + 1 ##
This was the euclidean algorithm. Now substituting back (the idea to prove Bezout's theorem)
##1 = 5 -2*2 = 5 - 2(17 -3*5) = 5 -2*17 + 2* 3*5 = -2*17 + 7*5##
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...

Similar threads

2
Replies
61
Views
12K
Replies
39
Views
12K
Replies
42
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
3K
2
Replies
56
Views
10K
2
Replies
86
Views
13K
Back
Top