Number Theory: Problem with proofsCongruence equation problemWhat does $ a pmod b$ mean?Linear congruence fill in the missing step?Proof: if $n > 1$ then $LD(n) $ is a prime numberNumber Theory Lemma About Linear Congruence (Explanation Needed)Chinese remainder theorem, how to get a ≡ b (mod pq) from a ≡ b (mod p) and a ≡ b (mod q)?Proof verification: $a+bequiv b+a ;; (mod;;n)$ and $abequiv ba ;; (mod;;n)$.Showing two different definitions of a primitive root are the sameweird gcd problem in number theoryNumber Theory Linear Diophantine Equations

Should I warn a new PhD Student?

How to get directions in deep space?

Would this string work as string?

If Captain Marvel (MCU) were to have a child with a human male, would the child be human or Kree?

Check if object is null and return null

Would a primitive species be able to learn English from reading books alone?

How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?

Limit max CPU usage SQL SERVER with WSRM

Air travel with refrigerated insulin

Determining multivariate least squares with constraint

Ways of geometrical multiplication

Do I have to know the General Relativity theory to understand the concept of inertial frame?

Pre-Employment Background Check With Consent For Future Checks

The Digit Triangles

Possible Eco thriller, man invents a device to remove rain from glass

Can I run 125kHz RF circuit on a breadboard?

Deciphering cause of death?

What the heck is gets(stdin) on site coderbyte?

What is the meaning of "You've never met a graph you didn't like?"

Why does the Persian emissary display a string of crowned skulls?

Mimic lecturing on blackboard, facing audience

Why is the principal energy of an electron lower for excited electrons in a higher energy state?

How to I force windows to use a specific version of SQLCMD?

Telemetry for feature health



Number Theory: Problem with proofs


Congruence equation problemWhat does $ a pmod b$ mean?Linear congruence fill in the missing step?Proof: if $n > 1$ then $LD(n) $ is a prime numberNumber Theory Lemma About Linear Congruence (Explanation Needed)Chinese remainder theorem, how to get a ≡ b (mod pq) from a ≡ b (mod p) and a ≡ b (mod q)?Proof verification: $a+bequiv b+a ;; (mod;;n)$ and $abequiv ba ;; (mod;;n)$.Showing two different definitions of a primitive root are the sameweird gcd problem in number theoryNumber Theory Linear Diophantine Equations













2












$begingroup$


There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.



enter image description here



enter image description here



For Proposition 3



I cannot understand the proof from "Therefore ..." in the third line. I was thinking that maybe "$m-l$ divides $k$" will be "$m-l$ divides $n$". Also, is $k/d$ an integer?
Also, can someone please give an example to clarify this theorem?



For Proposition 4



What does $f(x) in Z[x]$ mean? Why are the third brackets used?



I cannot understand how "By proposition 2, $a_ja^j equiv b_jb^j$ (mod $n$)...".
Can someone please explain?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    8 hours ago















2












$begingroup$


There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.



enter image description here



enter image description here



For Proposition 3



I cannot understand the proof from "Therefore ..." in the third line. I was thinking that maybe "$m-l$ divides $k$" will be "$m-l$ divides $n$". Also, is $k/d$ an integer?
Also, can someone please give an example to clarify this theorem?



For Proposition 4



What does $f(x) in Z[x]$ mean? Why are the third brackets used?



I cannot understand how "By proposition 2, $a_ja^j equiv b_jb^j$ (mod $n$)...".
Can someone please explain?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    8 hours ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.



enter image description here



enter image description here



For Proposition 3



I cannot understand the proof from "Therefore ..." in the third line. I was thinking that maybe "$m-l$ divides $k$" will be "$m-l$ divides $n$". Also, is $k/d$ an integer?
Also, can someone please give an example to clarify this theorem?



For Proposition 4



What does $f(x) in Z[x]$ mean? Why are the third brackets used?



I cannot understand how "By proposition 2, $a_ja^j equiv b_jb^j$ (mod $n$)...".
Can someone please explain?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




There are two propositions in the chapter of Number Theory in my book, the proofs of which I am having trouble to understand.



enter image description here



enter image description here



For Proposition 3



I cannot understand the proof from "Therefore ..." in the third line. I was thinking that maybe "$m-l$ divides $k$" will be "$m-l$ divides $n$". Also, is $k/d$ an integer?
Also, can someone please give an example to clarify this theorem?



For Proposition 4



What does $f(x) in Z[x]$ mean? Why are the third brackets used?



I cannot understand how "By proposition 2, $a_ja^j equiv b_jb^j$ (mod $n$)...".
Can someone please explain?







number-theory modular-arithmetic congruence-relations






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









MrAPMrAP

1,18721432




1,18721432











  • $begingroup$
    I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    8 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    8 hours ago















$begingroup$
I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
$endgroup$
– fleablood
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
I think the book has a typo and instead of $m-l$ divides $k$" it is supposed to be "$d$ divides $k$". That fits with $(m-l)d = knimplies m-l = frac kd n$ which assumes $frac kd$ is an integer.... on the other hand, that is one heck of a type to make!
$endgroup$
– fleablood
8 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    8 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    3 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    4 hours ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3155648%2fnumber-theory-problem-with-proofs%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4












$begingroup$

For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    8 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    3 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago
















4












$begingroup$

For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    8 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    3 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$

For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



For proposition 3, I agree with fleablood's assessment in a comment above that this is probably a typo.



For proposition $4$, note that the thing you're asking about appears in a parenthesis, following the abbreviation "i.e.". That means that even without knowing what "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" means, we can infer that it's merely an alternative formulation of whatever came before, namely that $f$ is a polynomial with integral coefficients.



To actually answer the question, given a ring $R$, the notation $R[x]$ means "the ring (or set) of polynomials with coefficients in $R$". So $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring of polynomials with integer coefficients. And $fin Bbb Z[x]$ means exactly that $f$ is an element of this ring.



As for why we use the brackets there? That's just convention. You could have $Bbb Z(x)$ as well, but that usually means the ring (or set) of rational functions with integer coefficients.



Finally, the "by proposition 2" thing, note that proposition 2 states that if we have a product of two things, and we change one of the factors to a congruent factor, the product is unchanged modulo $n$. So $$a_ja^j = a_ja^j-1cdot aequiv a_ja^j-1bpmod n$$
So we can swap one $a$ for a $b$. Now just swap the other $j-1$ $a$'s for $b$'s, one by one as proposition 2 says you're allowed to do, and finally you reach $a_jb^j$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 8 hours ago

























answered 8 hours ago









ArthurArthur

119k7118202




119k7118202











  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    8 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    3 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago

















  • $begingroup$
    heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    8 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    3 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
heck of a typo to make; and heck of a way to define and introduce notation (as an aside inside a parenthesis). If anything it should go the other way: "Let $f(x)in mathbb Z[x] (i.e. $f(x)$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients)". This book isn't winning me over.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
@fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
8 hours ago





$begingroup$
@fleablood When I learned complex analysis, the book had enough strategically placed typos that I gave up and used wikipedia to learn the theorems instead. And the educational value of wikipedia math articles is not always the greatest, as they mostly seem like reference works. So I know how it is.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
8 hours ago













$begingroup$
Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
$endgroup$
– MrAP
3 hours ago





$begingroup$
Shouldn't you write "$f(x)in Bbb Z[x]$" instead of "$fin Bbb Z[x]$" since $f$ denotes the set just like R (relation) denotes the set?
$endgroup$
– MrAP
3 hours ago













$begingroup$
@MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
2 hours ago





$begingroup$
@MrAP it's a matter of what you want to convey. $f$ is the name of the polynomial. $f(x)$ is the expression that defines the polynomial. At least that's how I think about it. $Bbb Z$ is the ring / set of integers, $Bbb Z[x]$ is the ring / set of polynomials with integer coefficients. Also, $R$ isn't a relation here. I did say "ring". Like $Bbb Z$, or $Bbb R$. If that isn't a term you've come across yet, then I am sorry for confusing you.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
2 hours ago













$begingroup$
By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
$endgroup$
– MrAP
2 hours ago





$begingroup$
By $R$ I meant the a relation. $R:Ato B$ is a subset of $Atimes B$. So similarly $f:Ato B$ should also be a subset of $Atimes B$ since a function is a relation. So $f$ denotes a set which represents a function. And normally we write that an element belongs to a set. Here as you have written, it would mean that a set belongs to another set which is normally not the case. That is what I am trying to express.
$endgroup$
– MrAP
2 hours ago












3












$begingroup$

I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    4 hours ago















3












$begingroup$

I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    4 hours ago













3












3








3





$begingroup$

I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



I think the book made a typo and it isn't $m-l$ that divides $k$ (I don't see that as even true) but that $d$ divides $k$.



This follow as $d$ divides $kn$ but is relatively prime to $n$ so $d$ must divide $k$.



And hence, yes, $frac kd$ is an integer, for which we conclude $m-l equiv 0 pmod n$.



Note: This will not be true if $a, b, n$ will have a common divisor (other than $1$). Consider $8 equiv 20 mod 12$ but $2equiv 5 mod 12$ is .... wrong. (Although $2 equiv 5 pmod 3$.....)



--- I empathize. For a typo that is a doozy to make and utter destroys the intent of the proof.



....



$mathbb Z[x]$ means the set of all polynomials with integer coefficients.



So $f(x) in mathbb Z[x]$ means "Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 8 hours ago

























answered 8 hours ago









fleabloodfleablood

72.8k22788




72.8k22788











  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    4 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    $(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
    $endgroup$
    – MrAP
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    4 hours ago















$begingroup$
$(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
$endgroup$
– MrAP
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
$(m-l)d=kn$ implies that $d$ divides $k$ and also $n$ divides $m-l$. Correct?
$endgroup$
– MrAP
7 hours ago













$begingroup$
IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
IF $d$ and $n$ are relatively prime (i.e. $gcd(d,n)=1$) then $d$ and $n$ have no factors in common. So if $(m-l)d = kn$ then $d$ divides $kn$. But as $d$ and $n$ have nothing in common, that means $d$ divides $k$. Likewise that means $n$ divides $(m-l)d$ but $n$ and $d$ have nothing in common so $n$ divides $m-l$..... BTW "$n$ divides $A$" and "$Aequiv 0 pmod n$" mean the exact same thing. And "$n$ divides $m-l$" and "$mequiv l pmod n$" and "$m-l equiv 0 pmod n$" all mean the same thing.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
4 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3155648%2fnumber-theory-problem-with-proofs%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim?How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of MahayanaWas the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha?Relationship between Buddhism, Hinduism and Yoga?Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/AtmaIs there a distinction between “ego identity” and “craving/hating”?Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism?Loss of “faith” in buddhismSimilarity between creation in Abrahamic religions and beginning of life in Earth mentioned Agganna Sutta?Are there studies about the difference between meditating in the morning versus in the evening?Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?Are there any prohibitions on participating in other religion's practices?Psychology of 'flow'

fallocate: fallocate failed: Text file busy in Ubuntu 17.04? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)defragmenting and increasing performance of old lubuntu system with swap partitionIssue with increasing the root partition from the swapthis /usr/bin/dpkg returned error || ubuntu-16.04, 64bitDefault 17.04 swap file locationHow to Resize Ubuntu 17.04 Zesty Swap file size?Ubuntu freezes from online formsMy Laptop is not starting after upgrade ubuntu 16.04 (Kernel 4.8.0-38 to 04.10.0-36)hcp: ERROR: FALLOCATE FAILED!Not sure my swap is being usedWine 3.0 asking for more virtual free swap

Where else does the Shulchan Aruch quote an authority by name?Parashat Metzora+HagadolPesach/PassoverShulchan Aruch UTF-8Anonymous glosses in the Shulchan AruchWhy is the Shulchan Aruch definitive?Siman 32, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch: UntranslatedLitvaks/Yeshivish and Shulchan AruchBuying a Shulchan AruchEnglish version of SHULCHAN ARUCHIs there any place where Shulchan Aruch rules with the Rosh against the Rif and Rambam?Are there practices where Sepharadim do not hold by Shulchan Aruch?5th part of the shulchan aruch