limitkiller
- 80
- 0
51^(-51)[itex]\equiv x (mod 8)[/itex] .
Does it mean anything at all?
If it does what is x?
Does it mean anything at all?
If it does what is x?
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.
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.
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 said:51^(-51)[itex]\equiv x (mod 8)[/itex] .
Does it mean anything at all?
If it does what is x?
Infinitum said:Modular arithmetic is defined only for integers. So your expression doesn't give any meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic
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.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
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.
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.
Nobody said anything about "rational numbers". if a and n are integers, then a-1 (mod n) is an integer.Infinitum said:Interesting. The number theory manual I used specifically defined it only for integers, and denied its existence for rational 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).So, does [itex]\sqrt{17} \equiv x (mod3)[/itex] mean something too?
Edit : Changed numbers.
HallsofIvy said:Nobody said anything about "rational numbers". if a and n are integers, then a-1 (mod n) is an integer.
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).
No, [itex]51^{-51}= (51^{-1})^{51}[/itex] which will be an integer (or equivalence class of integers depending upon how you define "modulo")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.
Yes, assuming you simply extend the standard definition to include complex remainders.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?
HallsofIvy said:Yes, assuming you simply extend the standard definition to include complex remainders.