What is the value of x in the equation 51^(-51)≡ x (mod 8)?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter limitkiller
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the expression 51^(-51) ≡ x (mod 8) and whether it holds any meaning within the framework of modular arithmetic. Participants explore the implications of negative exponents in modular contexts, the definition of modular arithmetic, and the existence of inverses.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the validity of using a negative exponent in modular arithmetic, suggesting that it may not have meaning.
  • Others argue that the expression does have meaning, explaining that the inverse of a number in modular arithmetic is defined as the number that, when multiplied, yields 1 modulo the base.
  • A participant provides an example using Euler's theorem to suggest that 51^(-51) can be simplified to 51^1 (mod 8).
  • There is a discussion about whether expressions involving square roots, such as √17 ≡ x (mod 3), have meaning, with some participants asserting that they do not, while others provide conditions under which they might.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the definitions of modular arithmetic, particularly concerning rational numbers and integers.
  • One participant suggests that if the definition of modular arithmetic is extended to include complex numbers, then expressions involving complex roots could also be meaningful.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of negative exponents in modular arithmetic. There are competing views on the meaning of certain expressions, particularly those involving square roots and complex numbers.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific definitions from number theory manuals that limit modular arithmetic to integers, while others challenge these definitions based on their interpretations and examples.

limitkiller
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
51^(-51)[itex]\equiv x (mod 8)[/itex] .
Does it mean anything at all?
If it does what is x?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


I doubt it means anything with a negative exponent of an integer.
 


Thanks.
 


limitkiller said:
51^(-51)[itex]\equiv x (mod 8)[/itex] .
Does it mean anything at all?
If it does what is x?

Hi limitkiller! :smile:Yes, it does have meaning.
The inverse of a number in modular arithmetic is the number by which you must multiply to get 1 modulo 8.

So for instance:
$$3^{-1} \equiv 3 \pmod 8$$
This is true since ##3 \cdot 3 \equiv 9 \equiv 1 \pmod 8##.Furthermore, according to Euler's theorem (skipping a few steps here) we have:
$$51^{-51} \equiv 51^{-51 \mod \phi(8)} \equiv 51^{-51 \mod 4} \equiv 51^1 \pmod 8$$So what do you think x is?
 


Infinitum said:
Modular arithmetic is defined only for integers. So your expression doesn't give any meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic



Of course it has a meaning: modulo 8, we have that [itex]\,3^{-1}=\frac{1}{3}=3\,[/itex] , since [itex]\,3\cdot 3=1\pmod 8[/itex] , so doing

arithmetic modulo 8 all the way in the following we get:[tex]51=3\pmod 8\Longrightarrow 51^{-51}=\left(3^2\right)^{25}\cdot 3=1\cdot 3 = 3[/tex]

DonAntonio
 


DonAntonio said:
Of course it has a meaning: modulo 8, we have that [itex]\,3^{-1}=\frac{1}{3}=3\,[/itex] , since [itex]\,3\cdot 3=1\pmod 8[/itex] , so doing

arithmetic modulo 8 all the way in the following we get:[tex]51=3\pmod 8\Longrightarrow 51^{-51}=\left(3^2\right)^{25}\cdot 3=1\cdot 3 = 3[/tex]

DonAntonio

Interesting. The number theory manual I used specifically defined it only for integers, and denied its existence for rational numbers.

So, does [itex]\sqrt{17} \equiv x (mod3)[/itex] mean something too?

Edit : Changed numbers.
 


DonAntonio said:
Of course it has a meaning: modulo 8, we have that [itex]\,3^{-1}=\frac{1}{3}=3\,[/itex] , since [itex]\,3\cdot 3=1\pmod 8[/itex] , so doing

arithmetic modulo 8 all the way in the following we get:[tex]51=3\pmod 8\Longrightarrow 51^{-51}=\left(3^2\right)^{25}\cdot 3=1\cdot 3 = 3[/tex]

DonAntonio
I think you dropped a minus sign in the middle there, but since [itex]3^{-1}\equiv3 (mod 8)[/itex] the answer is right.
 


haruspex said:
I think you dropped a minus sign in the middle there, but since [itex]3^{-1}\equiv3 (mod 8)[/itex] the answer is right.



The first line already explained why [itex]\,3^{-1}=3\pmod 8[/itex]...

DonAntonio
 
  • #10


Infinitum said:
Interesting. The number theory manual I used specifically defined it only for integers, and denied its existence for rational numbers.

So, does [itex]\sqrt{17} \equiv x (mod3)[/itex] mean something too?

Edit : Changed numbers.


Sure: [itex]\,x\equiv\sqrt{17}\pmod 3\Longleftrightarrow x^2\equiv 17\pmod 3[/itex] , and since [itex]\,17\equiv 2\pmod 3[/itex] , we

get the equation [itex]\,x^2=2\pmod 3\,[/itex], which has no solution in the prime field of integer residues modulo [itex]\,3[/itex].

And your number theory manual is right: the modulo arithmetic is defined for integers, but its algebraic structure is rich when a prime is

involved and thus we have a field, where we can divide by non-zero elements and etc.

DonAntonio
 
Last edited:
  • #11


I see. Thanks for the reply. :smile:
 
  • #12


Infinitum said:
Interesting. The number theory manual I used specifically defined it only for integers, and denied its existence for rational numbers.
Nobody said anything about "rational numbers". if a and n are integers, then a-1 (mod n) is an integer.

So, does [itex]\sqrt{17} \equiv x (mod3)[/itex] mean something too?

Edit : Changed numbers.
If it exists, yes. First 17= 3(5)+ 2 so [itex]17\equiv 2[/itex] (mod 3) and the equation reduces to [itex]\sqrt{2}\equiv x[/itex]. That is, we must have [itex]x^2= 3k+ 2[/itex] for some k. Further, since only 0, 1, and 2 are in the set of integers modulo 3, we need only note that 0(0)= 0, 1(1)= 1, and 2(2)= 4= 1 (mod 3) so that while [itex]x^2\equiv 0[/itex] and [itex]x^2\equiv 1[/itex] have solution modulo 3, [itex]x^2\equiv 2[/itex] does not. That is, [itex]\sqrt{17}\equiv x (mod 3)[/itex] does NOT have a meaning but [itex]\sqrt{18}\equiv x (mod 3)[/itex] does have meaning (18= 6(3)+ 0 so 18 is equivalent to 0 and x= 0 (mod 3) is a solution) and [itex]\sqrt{19}\equiv x (mod 3)[/itex] also has meaning (19= 6(3)+ 1 so 19 is equivalent to 1 and x= 1 and x= 2 (mod 3) are both solutions).
 
  • #13


HallsofIvy said:
Nobody said anything about "rational numbers". if a and n are integers, then a-1 (mod n) is an integer.

I saw the OP's question that stated [itex]51^{-51}[/itex], which is rational and not of the form a-1... Though I must admit, I was prejudicial.
If it exists, yes. First 17= 3(5)+ 2 so [itex]17\equiv 2[/itex] (mod 3) and the equation reduces to [itex]\sqrt{2}\equiv x[/itex]. That is, we must have [itex]x^2= 3k+ 2[/itex] for some k. Further, since only 0, 1, and 2 are in the set of integers modulo 3, we need only note that 0(0)= 0, 1(1)= 1, and 2(2)= 4= 1 (mod 3) so that while [itex]x^2\equiv 0[/itex] and [itex]x^2\equiv 1[/itex] have solution modulo 3, [itex]x^2\equiv 2[/itex] does not. That is, [itex]\sqrt{17}\equiv x (mod 3)[/itex] does NOT have a meaning but [itex]\sqrt{18}\equiv x (mod 3)[/itex] does have meaning (18= 6(3)+ 0 so 18 is equivalent to 0 and x= 0 (mod 3) is a solution) and [itex]\sqrt{19}\equiv x (mod 3)[/itex] also has meaning (19= 6(3)+ 1 so 19 is equivalent to 1 and x= 1 and x= 2 (mod 3) are both solutions).

This explanation was solid, thanks a lot, HallsofIvy.

This led me wonder whether there is a modulo for complex numbers, too. Say,

[tex]\sqrt{17i} \equiv x(mod 3)[/tex]

Which reduces to,

[tex]\sqrt{2i} = x[/tex]

So, we would have,
[tex]x^2 = 3k - 2 = 3(k-1) + 3 - 2 = 3n + 1[/tex]

And hence x is equal to 1 or 2 (mod 3) are the solutions.

Is this correct?
 
  • #14


Oops, I included i(iota) in the square root by mistake. Can't edit it now, though.
 
  • #15


Infinitum said:
I saw the OP's question that stated [itex]51^{-51}[/itex], which is rational and not of the form a-1... Though I must admit, I was prejudicial.
No, [itex]51^{-51}= (51^{-1})^{51}[/itex] which will be an integer (or equivalence class of integers depending upon how you define "modulo")


This led me wonder whether there is a modulo for complex numbers, too. Say,

[tex]\sqrt{17}i \equiv x(mod 3)[/tex]

Which reduces to,

[tex]\sqrt{2}i = x[/tex]

So, we would have,
[tex]x^2 = 3k - 2 = 3(k-1) + 3 - 2 = 3n + 1[/tex]

And hence x is equal to 1 or 2 (mod 3) are the solutions.

Is this correct?
Yes, assuming you simply extend the standard definition to include complex remainders.
 
  • #16


HallsofIvy said:
Yes, assuming you simply extend the standard definition to include complex remainders.

Aye. Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K