Friday, 14 October 2016

Problem on modular arithmetic



I can't quite figure out how to title this question, but since this isn't quite a proof, I'm not sure if there's a better way to title this.




This is a problem from Norman Bigg's Discrete Mathematics textbook that I can't manage to figure out.



"Show that the equation x=x1 in Zp implies that x21=0, and deduce that 1 and 1 are the only elements of Zp that are equal to their own inverse."



First, Zp elsewhere in the text refers to the integers modulo (some prime), though the author always took care to specify that p was a prime, though that isn't the case here. This is throwing me off quite a bit, as I just worked out another example in Z8 where 5 was its own inverse (as 55=251 (mod 8). So, this doesn't hold with p=8, so it seems that it must be the case that there are some restrictions on p, most likely that it is prime. (If I'm wrong on this, and this could apply to any pN, please let me know.)



From here, I can't quite seem to string together these equations. I've been able to piece together, from our assumptions, these facts:



(a) xx11 (mod p) since x and x1 are inverses.




(b) x21 (mod p) since x=x1 by assumption.



(c) By the definition of modulus, x21 is a multiple of p, so some mN such that x21=mp.



(d) We need to somehow deduce that mp must equal 0. The only possible way I could think to do this is to assume that p is prime and conclude that x21 clearly cannot be prime as it's a difference of squares. But, even then, it could certainly be a multiple of a prime, if I'm not mistaken. This doesn't seem to make much sense.



From here, it seems to me that the second part of the problem would follow. If equality in Zp implies x21=0, and we can factor the left-hand side, a difference of squares, into (x+1)(x1), then clearly x=1 or x=1. Assuming this is correct--please tell me if it isn't--the only real issue seems to be deducing that x21=0.



Any helpful thoughts and hints would be very appreciated.


Answer




You reasoning is on the right track. Since (x1)(x+1)=x210(modp), p divides (x1)(x+1) and since p is prime (as you noted, otherwise the result can be false), either p|(x+1) or p|(x1), that is, either x1(modp) or x1(modp).



If you've taken x to be on {1,,p2}, then from here you can conclude that x21=0 since x=1 or x=1. If not, that's not necessarily true. For example, by the above calculation p+1 verifies (p+1)210(modp) but (p+1)210 as integers.



As a side note, [x]Zn has an inverse if and only if x is coprime with n. To talk about inverses in a general setting, one must first assure their existence. One way of doing that is taking n prime, so that any non zero element has an inverse (in other words, Zp is a field if p prime).


No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find limh0sin(ha)h without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...