3
$\begingroup$

The question is If $b \equiv 0 \pmod a$ and $c \equiv 0 \pmod b$, then $c \equiv 0 \pmod a$.

My attempt is that $b \equiv 0 \pmod a$ can be written $a\mid b-0 = a\mid b$ and the same with $c \equiv 0 \pmod b$ can be written $b\mid c-0 = b\mid c$ then the $c \equiv 0 \pmod a$ can also be written $a\mid c-0 = a\mid c$.

Now all I have to show is that $a\mid b$ and $b\mid c$ then $a\mid c$ and to show $a\mid c$ I can write $c= ak$ for some integer $k$.

Now I start my proof
let $a\mid b$ be $b=a\cdot r$ for some integer $r$ (1)
let $b\mid c$ be $c=b\cdot s$ for some integer $s$ (2)

Sub (1) into (2) and get
$c=(ar)\cdot s$
$c=a\cdot(r\cdot s)$
so $c=a\cdot k$
therefore the statement $b \equiv 0 \pmod a$ and $c \equiv 0 \pmod b$, then $c \equiv 0 \pmod a$ is true.

I'm wondering if this is a good/correct proof? any input would be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

You did not define what $k$ is, so no, your proof is not correct. You simply state

So $c=ak$.

What is $k$? How did you prove that $c=ak$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @Ganymede The OP asked "is this proof correct?". I answered him (the answer is no) and explained to him where the answer is wrong. This should motivate him to improve his answer. On the other hand, you actually wrote a mathematically false thing in your answer, thus I downvoted it. Now you fixed your answer and I removed the downvote. I don't see why you should downvote my answer. $\endgroup$ – 5xum Aug 26 '15 at 7:52
  • $\begingroup$ He did define what $k$ is. It is the integer for which $c=ak$. That comes directly from the definition of $a\mid c$. $\endgroup$ – celtschk Aug 26 '15 at 7:55
  • $\begingroup$ @celtschk If I have a proof in which I want to prove the statement: "there exists such a $k$ that $c=ak$", and I say "let $k$ be the number such that $c=ak$", then the proof is incorrect. You cannot assume that the thing you are trying to prove exists. $\endgroup$ – 5xum Aug 26 '15 at 8:00
  • $\begingroup$ @celtschk The proof is almost entirely correct, but is missing one crucial line: "then, if we set $k$ to be $k=*$, we can see that $c=ak$". Without that line (with something written in place of the asterix), the proof is incorrect. $\endgroup$ – 5xum Aug 26 '15 at 8:01
  • $\begingroup$ He rewrites the statement "$a\mid c$" he wants to prove into "$c=ak$ for some $k$". That's nothing but another way to state the same. The statement "$c=ak$ for some $k$" is the statement he's going to proof. Note that he writes "Now I start my proof" below that line, so that line is not even part of the proof, so how can it make the proof wrong? $\endgroup$ – celtschk Aug 26 '15 at 8:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.