Processing math: 100%
Skip to main content

Section 5.2 A Strategy For the First Solution

The previous proposition always works. However, it can be very tedious to find that first solution if the modulus is not small. This section is devoted to strategies 1 The reader should note that we roughly follow [C.2.1, pp. 50-51] in this, but that an alternate (or supplemental?) approach using the Bezout identity is followed in texts like [C.2.4] or [C.2.13]. for simplifying a congruence so that finding such a solution is easier.

Example 5.2.2. A big example.

Let's do a big problem exemplifying all the strategies; we will break it up into possible steps you might do.

 Solve 30x≑18 (mod 33).
  1. First, note that all three of the coefficients and modulus are divisible by 3. So right away we should simplify by dividing by 3. But keep in mind that our final solution will need to be modulo 33, not modulo eleven! We should still end up with gcd(30,33)=3 total solutions, and if we don't, we have messed up somewhere.

  2. Now we have 10x≑6 (mod 11). (Again, although this will have one solution modulo 11, we will need to get the other two solutions modulo 33.) Since 10 and 6 are both divisible by 2, and since gcd(2,11)=1, we can divide the coefficients (not modulus) by 2 without any other muss.

    5x≑3 (mod 11)
  3. So take 5x≑3 (mod 11), and let's try to replace 3 by another number congruent to 3 modulo 11 which would allow me to use the above steps again.

    • I could try 3+11=14, but that gives

      5x≑14 (mod 11)

      and 14 doesn't share a divisor with 5 (from the 5x).

    • If I try 3+22=25, giving

      5x≑25 (mod 11)

      then 25 does share a divisor with 5.

  4. Now I can go back and reduce 5x≑25 (mod 11) to

    x≑5 (mod 11)

    And that's the answer!

  5. Or is it? Remember in the first step that we started modulo 33, and that all the answers will be equivalent modulo 11. So we see that

    x=5+11k for k∈Z

    will be the answer, which is the three equivalence classes {[5],[16],[27]}.

Does it check out?

One final observation is that we avoided trial and error as long as possible. At various points we could have done so, but x=1 and x=2 wouldn't have worked right away, and I am lazy…

Example 5.2.3.

Let's finish the previous example again, but using the other possible counterintuitive strategy. That was the trick to multiply a and b by something which would reduce; ideally it would reduce [a]≑[1].

  • We were at 5x≑3 (mod 11).

  • Multiplying a=5 and b=3 by 9, which is coprime to 11, gives us

    45x≑27 (mod 11).
  • This reduces to x≑5, and gives the same answer as before (provided we remember to get all possible answers modulo 33).

Example 5.2.4.

Try completely solving one of the following two congruences (Exercise 5.6.3) on your own now, before moving on. The rest of the Exercises provide other interesting practice.

  • 7x≑8 (mod 15)

  • 6x≑8 (mod 14)

Example 5.2.5.

Finally, let's see examples of using the strategies poorly.

First, suppose 6x≑12 (mod 4). Then we could divide all terms by 2, yielding 3x≑6 (mod 2), and then reducing everything modulo two we obtain x≑0, or that the solution is all even x. If we had instead canceled the 2 from only the 6x≑12 portion, we would have gotten 3x≑6 (mod 4), which is βˆ’x≑2 or x≑2 modulo four, which is only half of the true solutions.

As a similar example, suppose we want to solve 7x≑7 (mod 12). If we used cancellation the solution would obviously be x≑1. Set this aside and instead multiply 7x and 7 by 2 in order to obtain 14x≑14 which simplifies to 2x≑2 (mod 12), which now looks like an easy target for cancelling 2 from all three numbers to obtain x≑1 (mod 6), which is twice the true solutions.

The moral of the story is that while some structure is preserved when we don't stick to numbers coprime to the modulus, it's very easy to remove or add spurious solutions, so it must be avoided.

Here are formal statements and proofs of the propositions we used.

Like many such proofs, you basically follow your nose.

First write \(ad\equiv bd\) (mod \(nd\)) as \(nd \mid ad-bd\text{,}\) or \(ad-bd=k(nd)\) for some \(k\in\mathbb{Z}\text{.}\) We rewrite this as \(d(a-b)=d(kn)\text{.}\)

Since \(d\neq 0\text{,}\) asserting \(d(a-b)=d(kn)\) is equivalent to saying \(a-b=kn\text{,}\) which is of course by definition saying that \(a\equiv b\) (mod \(n\)).

Since all steps were equivalences, both statements are equivalent.

We'll only sketch the proof; see Exercise 5.6.2.

  • Use the definitions as above, starting with the \(ad\) situation.

  • You should have that \(n\) divides some stuff, which is itself a product of \(d\) and other stuff.

  • We had a proposition somewhere about coprimeness and division; what remains should yield us \(a\equiv b\) (mod \(n\))