Verify that the function is a injective

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


The function is ##\phi " \mathbb{Z}_{12} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}_{24}##, where the rule is ##\phi ([a]_{12}) = [2a]_{24}##. Verify this is a injection

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



Let ##[x]_{12} ,[y]_{12} \in \mathbb{Z}_{12}## be arbitrary. Suppose that ##\phi([x]_{12}) = \phi( [y]_{12})## is true, then

##[2x]_{24} = [2y]_{24}## Two congruence classes are equal iff ##2x \equiv 2y ~(\mod 24)##, which is by definition

##2x - 2y = 24k##, where there exists a ##k \in \mathbb{Z}##

Here the difficulty I am facing. Can I just simply let ##k=0##, which we give me ##x=y##? If so, why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bashyboy said:

Homework Statement


The function is ##\phi " \mathbb{Z}_{12} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}_{24}##, where the rule is ##\phi ([a]_{12}) = [2a]_{24}##. Verify this is a injection

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



Let ##[x]_{12} ,[y]_{12} \in \mathbb{Z}_{12}## be arbitrary. Suppose that ##\phi([x]_{12}) = \phi( [y]_{12})## is true, then

##[2x]_{24} = [2y]_{24}## Two congruence classes are equal iff ##2x \equiv 2y ~(\mod 24)##, which is by definition

##2x - 2y = 24k##, where there exists a ##k \in \mathbb{Z}##

Here the difficulty I am facing. Can I just simply let ##k=0##, which we give me ##x=y##? If so, why?

No. You would have to prove that k = 0.

Instead, why not simplify ##2x - 2y = 24k##?
 
No, you can't just let k = 0 (try going through your arguments with x=12 and y=0). Remember what you are trying to show: You want to show that the congruence classes of x and y are equal, not x=y.
 
Oh, heavens. This was much simpler than I thought it was. If I take ##2x - 2y = 24k## and divide by ##2##, then I get ##x-y = 12k##, which would eventually lead to ##[x]_{12} = [y]_{12}##. Therefore, the function is an injection.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top