ATAR Notes: Forum
Uni Stuff => Science => Faculties => Mathematics => Topic started by: QuantumJG on July 27, 2010, 08:22:58 pm
-
Hey this is a thread for my Group Theory and Linear Algebra subject.
Anyway:
Prove that if
s.t.
&
then 
How I did the proof:
where 
where 


Now here is where I'm not sure if I can do this.
& 
//
With the next question I don't know how to show uniqueness.
Show that the remainder
& quotient
in Theorem 1.2.1 are unique.
Theorem 1.2.1:
If
and
. There are unique integers
,
such that
where
-
yes,
is correct. This has two solutions: (1,1) and (-1,-1). You have to rule out the latter. e.g: if a=1, b=-1 then it is true that a|b and b|a in Z (showing the significance of the restriction to positive integers)
To get you started on the next one:
Suppose that qm+r=q'm+r'
therefore
m(q-q')=r'-r
Now you are ready to show that r'-r=0 as u want. (Hint: try to bound r'-r )
-
Hey this is a thread for my Group Theory and Linear Algebra subject.
Anyway:
Prove that if
s.t.
&
then 
How I did the proof:
where 
where 


Now here is where I'm not sure if I can do this.
& 
//
With the next question I don't know how to show uniqueness.
Show that the remainder
& quotient
in Theorem 1.2.1 are unique.
Theorem 1.2.1:
If
and
. There are unique integers
,
such that
where 
Hi, there, you are correct for your first question.
The 2nd question is a classic, here is how I would attempt it:
The theorem (If a and b are integers with b> 0, then there is a unique pair of integers q and r such that a = qb + r and 0 <= r < b) has 2 parts.
One we must prove existence of a 'r' such that 0<=r<b
Second we must prove uniqueness.
Let us first prove existence.
First we prove existence. Let
. This set of integers contains non-negative elements (take
), so
is a non-empty subset of
; by the well-ordering principle
has a least element, which has the form
for some integer
. Thus
with
. If
then
contains a non-negative element
; this contradicts the minimality of
, so we must have
.
Now to prove uniqueness
To prove uniqueness, suppose that
with
and
, so
. If
then
, so
, which is impossible since
and
lie between
and
inclusive. Hence
and so
.
-
notice also that this theorem extends to
ie: if we let
be real but keep
as an integer.
-
I saw my lecturer about this question today, but I forgot how he proved it.
Let [Tex] a,b,c \in \mathbb{Z} with gcd(a,b) = 1. Prove that if a|c and b|c then ab|c.
-
Well if you write
and
as a products of factors, since
and
share no common factors, you can multiply them together and they must still divide
.
-
I saw my lecturer about this question today, but I forgot how he proved it.
Let
with
. Prove that if a|c and b|c then ab|c.
We have ax + by = 1, c = ae and c = bf for some integers x, y, e and f. Then c = cax + cby = (bf)ax + (ae)by = ab(fx + ey), so ab|c.
-
I saw my lecturer about this question today, but I forgot how he proved it.
Let
with
. Prove that if a|c and b|c then ab|c.
We have ax + by = 1, c = ae and c = bf for some integers x, y, e and f. Then c = cax + cby = (bf)ax + (ae)by = ab(fx + ey), so ab|c.
Yeah that's how he proved it. Thanks!
-
I'm having trouble with this:
Show that if
with
(mod 8), then the equation

has no solutions if 
WTF!
-
Actually forget mod 4, do it in mod 8.
We know that given a whole number
is odd, then we have
.
Likewise (tweaked from mod 4 case), if
is even, then we have two cases:
1.
or
2. 
From here, by brute force, we can work out that the possibilities for
can be any number other than 7.
-
mod 8:
:0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
:0 1 4 1 0 1 4 1
(notice how it is symmetrical since
, saves you half the time)
so amongst
you cannot have no 4 or just a single 4 since otherwise the sum would be too small. So you need at least two 4's. But two 4's is 0 so that also makes your sum too small.
-
Please suggest a possible financial application for said theory. Thanks.
-
mod 8:
:0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
:0 1 4 1 0 1 4 1
(notice how it is symmetrical since
, saves you half the time)
so amongst
you cannot have no 4 or just a single 4 since otherwise the sum would be too small. So you need at least two 4's. But two 4's is 0 so that also makes your sum too small.
Thanks Kamil. There was a question earlier where we had to do a multiplication table for 8 and I noticed that symmetry.
-
This is a problem from last years exam.
Let V =
and T: V
V be the linear transformation defined as:
T(p(x)) = p(x+1) + 3p'(x)
a) Find the matrix T with respect to the basis {
} for V.
So I got:
p(1) = {1,0,0}
p(x) = {2,1,0}
p(x2) = {1,4,1}
So I got T to be:
\] <br />)
I just want to make sure this is right!
-
you want to be finding
. I have no idea what you mean by
etc., typo?
-
exam complete. my thoughts:
(http://imgur.com/MF74E.png)
-
The exam was alright, although it was harder than last years.
Who are you? Whereabouts in the lecture theatre did you sit?
-
Up the back, like a boss.
-
Do you know Tom Dutka, Michael Malek and Angus McAndrew? I hang out with Angus and Michael and see Tom every so often and I know they sit up the back. I sit in the front.