Understanding the Addition Theorem for Modular Operations

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajbiol
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Addition
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Addition Theorem for modular operations, specifically the proof that (x+y)%d = (x%d + y%d) %d. The confusion arises from the transition from (q(1)d + r(1) + q(2)d + r(2))%d to (r(1) + r(2))%d, with the key point being that multiples of d (q(1)d and q(2)d) are congruent to zero modulo d. This is because d is a divisor of itself, making any integer multiple of d equal to zero in modular arithmetic. The clarification emphasizes that the proof relies on the definition of the modulo operation and the properties of integers. Understanding this concept resolves the initial confusion about ignoring the products of q(1)d and q(2)d.
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!
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

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