Unique Inverse of a Modulo m When a and m are Relatively Prime

  • Thread starter Thread starter brad sue
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Prime
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the uniqueness of the inverse of a positive integer \( a \) modulo \( m \) when \( a \) and \( m \) are relatively prime. The original poster seeks assistance in deriving the conclusion from the given congruence relations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to show that if \( a \) and \( m \) are relatively prime, then the solutions to the congruence \( ax \equiv 1 \mod m \) must be equal. Participants question the validity of cancelling \( a \) in the congruence and explore the implications of the relationship between \( a \) and \( m \).

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on the reasoning needed to derive the conclusion, emphasizing the importance of the relationship between \( a \) and \( m \). The discussion is exploring the implications of the theorem related to the greatest common divisor and its role in the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants are operating under the assumption that \( a \) and \( m \) are relatively prime, which is central to the problem. There is also a hint provided that suggests not needing to prove the equality of the solutions directly.

brad sue
Messages
270
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I need help with this problem.

Show that if a and m are relatively prime positive integers, then the inverse of a modulo m is unique modulo m.
[hint: assume that there are 2 solutions b and c of the congruence ax==1(mod m). No need to prove that b==c (mod m) ]

I have just started:

a*b==1(mod m) and c*a==1(mod m)-->a*b==c*a(mod m)
-->b==c (mod m)
then ??
Can I have some help please?
B
 
Physics news on Phys.org
b=c (mod m) is what you're trying to prove. The problem is deriving this from a*b=a*c (mod m). You can't just cancel a like in ordinary multiplication (for example, 3*1=3*4 (mod 9), but 1\neq4(mod 9)). a*b=a*c (mod m) is equivalent to saying that m divides a*b-a*c=a*(b-c). What can you conclude from this given that a and m are relatively prime?
 
StatusX said:
b=c (mod m) is what you're trying to prove. The problem is deriving this from a*b=a*c (mod m). You can't just cancel a like in ordinary multiplication (for example, 3*1=3*4 (mod 9), but 1\neq4(mod 9)). a*b=a*c (mod m) is equivalent to saying that m divides a*b-a*c=a*(b-c). What can you conclude from this given that a and m are relatively prime?

we can say that gcd(a,m)=1 and a*b=a*c (mod m)
--> b=c(mod m) (according a theorem we saw in class)..
Am I right?
B
 
Then you're done. Given that theorem, it's a pretty trivial problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K