What Implications Arise from Modifying the Division Theorem in Number Theory?

Click For Summary
Modifying the division theorem in number theory introduces an alternative definition for the quotient and remainder, which can lead to confusion and inconsistency with established proofs. The standard division theorem, expressed as a = bq + r, is preferred because it aligns with the well-ordering principle and supports rigorous mathematical proofs. The new definitions, while theoretically valid, complicate congruence results and arithmetic operations that are naturally suited to the original formulation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of adhering to established definitions for clarity and consistency in mathematical discourse. Overall, the implications of modifying the division theorem suggest potential complications in understanding and applying number theory concepts.
Kartik.
Messages
55
Reaction score
1
Well the standard division theorem says,

a = bq +r
where,
0 <= r < b
after that we were introduced with r = b - r\acute{}
r\acute{} having the same domain as that of r
after that the theorem changes to
a = b(q+1) - r\acute{}

Solving it with r\acute{}= b-r, gives us the standard equation, but what does it imply?

also two conditions in r and r\acute{} where given -
r>=1/2b and r\acute{}<=1/2b
and then defining Q and Ra = bQ +R where |R| <=1/2b

What does all this mean?
Examples, please?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey Kartik.

It just means you have a different definition for the quotient and the remainder.

It's better to use the original definition, and the reason for this is that all of the rigorous proofs are based on what is known as the well ordering principle and for the normal definition that is used, the proofs are standardized.

The other thing is that the natural definition of the modulus makes more sense when its defined with the normal bq + r instead of your own, because all the congruence results and arithmetic are naturally suited to this definition.

Is there any reason why you wish to use your definition over the standard one?
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
934
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K