0
$\begingroup$

I was reading CLRS and it had the following Corollary:

If $n_1, n_2, ..., n_k$ are pairwise relatively prime and $n = n_1n_2...n_k$ then for all integers $x$ and $a$,

$$ x \equiv a \pmod {n_i}$$

for $i=1,2,...,k$ if and only if

$$ x \equiv a \pmod n$$

There seems to be some words missing in the theorem/corollary. Should it read:

For all integers $x$ and $a$ that satisfy the equation:

$$ x \equiv a \pmod {n_i}$$

we have that it implies that:

$$ x \equiv a \pmod n $$

is also true. Furthermore, the converse is true too.

In other words, if: $ x \equiv a \pmod {n_i}$ for some integer $a$ and $x$, then it implies that $ x \equiv a \pmod n $ and visa versa. i.e. If $ x \equiv a \pmod n $ is true then $ x \equiv a \pmod {n_i}$.

Is that correct?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the meaning is exactly that you mentioned. "If and only if" means that the implication is true in both directions. $\endgroup$ – Peter Dec 15 '15 at 9:48
0
$\begingroup$

It means something like $x \equiv 2 \pmod 5$ and $x \equiv 2 \pmod 7$ if and only if $x \equiv 2 \pmod{35}$

$\endgroup$

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.