Understanding Modulus: Positive, Negative, and the Result

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the modulus operation, specifically the property mod(xy) = mod(x) mod(y) when both x and y are negative. Participants clarify that when x and y are negative, their modulus values are expressed as -mod(x) and -mod(y), leading to the conclusion that mod(xy) equals mod(x) mod(y). There is confusion regarding why the negative signs are necessary, as mod(x) and -mod(x) are different. The explanation emphasizes the importance of using the definition of modulus for negative numbers to prove the property correctly. Overall, the conversation highlights the nuances of applying modulus in mathematical proofs.
garyljc
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
hi all,
i was studying modulus when i came across this mod(xy) = modx mod y
we consider 3 cases
whereby both positive , both negative, or positive negative

it reads here if we consider x and y to be negative
it will be something like this

mod xy = xy = - mod x ( - mod y ) = mod x mod y
therefore proven

i do not understand why it is -mod x and -mod y
i know that it says that x and y has to be negative
but isn't -mod x different from mod x ? eg if x is 2 , -mod x will be -2 , and mod x will be 2
correct me if I'm wrong
i'm lost
thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If x is negative, then mod(x)=-x. So what you've got there is that we've noted

x = -(-x)
y = -(-y)

Hence

xy = (-(-x))(-(-y)) = (-mod x)(=mod y)

if x,y <0.

And, yes mod(x) and -mod(x) are obviously different, so you're correct there.
 
hey matt ,
but according to the proof
it's mod xy = xy = - mod x ( - mod y ) = mod x mod y

why can't it be
mod xy = xy = mod x mod y
why does it have to have an additional -mod x (-mod y) ?
 
garyljc said:
hey matt ,
but according to the proof
it's mod xy = xy = - mod x ( - mod y ) = mod x mod y

why can't it be
mod xy = xy = mod x mod y
why does it have to have an additional -mod x (-mod y) ?

Because both x and y are negative and not equal to mod x or mod y respectively, but to -mod x and -mod y.
 
garyljc said:
hey matt ,
but according to the proof
it's mod xy = xy = - mod x ( - mod y ) = mod x mod y

why can't it be
mod xy = xy = mod x mod y
why does it have to have an additional -mod x (-mod y) ?

Those equalities many (and indeed do) hold, but you want to *prove* that they do. So you have to use the *definition* of modulus for -ve numbers, rather than just writing what you want to be true, i.e. go the extra mile and make things explicit.

Think of it this way: you know that mod(x)=-x if x<0, now you want to show, using this knowledge, that if x,y<0, then mod(xy)=mod(x)mod(y).

Since x and y are less than 0, xy>0, so mod(xy)=xy.

Now, mod(x)=-x and mod(y)=-y, thus mod(x)mod(y)=(-x)(-y)=xy, so all is fine.

All the proof does is put those things together in one line.
 
What definition of "modulus" are you using?. It seems to me that to prove something that fundamental you would want to use the precise definition.
 
Good morning I have been refreshing my memory about Leibniz differentiation of integrals and found some useful videos from digital-university.org on YouTube. Although the audio quality is poor and the speaker proceeds a bit slowly, the explanations and processes are clear. However, it seems that one video in the Leibniz rule series is missing. While the videos are still present on YouTube, the referring website no longer exists but is preserved on the internet archive...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K