Understanding the Addition Theorem for Modular Operations

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajbiol
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Addition
ajbiol
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I was wondering if someone can explain to me a step in a proof given to me by my professor in regards to a modular operation theorem.

Addition theorem: Given three integers x, y, d (d > 0), (x+y)%d = (x%d + y%d) %d

Proof:
Let x = q(1)d + r(1) and y = q(2)d + r(2).
We have (x+y)%d = (q(1)d + r(1) + q(2)d + r(2)) %d
= (r(1) + r(2)) %d
Therefore: (x+y)%d = (x%d + y%d) %d

I don't get how my professor jumped from (q(1)d + r(1) + q(2)d + r(2))%d to (r(1) + r(2))%d.

Is there a specific reason for why we just ignore the product of q(1)d and q(2)d?

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is there a specific reason for why we just ignore the product of q(1)d and q(2)d?
The Big Idea is that d is zero modulo d, so q(1)d is zero because you're multiplying q(1) by zero.

As for the technical detail, doesn't the equality follow directly from the definition of x%d? If you don't think so, then please state what definition you are using, and apply that definition to the two sides of that equation.
 
d has to be greater than zero in our given. so i don't believe q(1)d and q(2)d are negated because d is zero.

ajbiol said:
Addition theorem: Given three integers x, y, d (d > 0), (x+y)%d = (x%d + y%d) %d
 
ajbiol said:
d has to be greater than zero in our given. so i don't believe q(1)d and q(2)d are negated because d is zero.
d is zero modulo d.
 
oh i get it! ty ty!
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top