-3
$\begingroup$

The precise definition given in Dummit and Foote (sec 0.3, pg. 9) is the following:

The definition of elements in residue class $x$ are those that are between $\bar0, \bar1, ..., \overline{x-1}$.

Any integer congruent to any of these elements can be a representative of the element.

My answer to this question was severely downvoted and got deleted:

Hence, $\overline{768}$ CANNOT be an element of the class as many others have incorrectly pointed out - but $-768$ can be.

Yes, $-768 \mod 157 \equiv \overline{17}$.

And why is this if I just quoted a definition from a respectable math book? It appears that Dummit and Foote (3e) is incorrect, then.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, but your question is really not clear. As the definition you mentioned : The definition of elements in residue class 𝑥 are those that are between $\bar 0$, $\bar 1$,..., $\overline{x-1}$, that's definitely not correct. Element of residue class of $x$ (in $\mathbb Z/N\mathbb Z$) are element of $\{x+Nk\mid k\in\mathbb Z\}$ and not what you mentioned $\endgroup$ – user649261 Mar 4 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ If your question about why you got downvoted, you should post on Meta (since this is not itself a mathematical question). If your question is if whether Dummit and Foote is incorrect, you should include more context. I can't tell what Dummit and Foote says that you think is incorrect. In particular, what you have in your quotes block is not identical to the wording in Dummit & Foote. $\endgroup$ – Morgan Rodgers Mar 4 at 17:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your answer was wrong (and not consistent with Dummit & Foote): $\overline{768}$ is a perfectly good element of the quotient, and coincides with $\overline{768 \pmod{157}}.$ Moreover, $-768$ is not an element of the quotient, because it's not a coset. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Mar 4 at 17:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure the negative reaction to this question is justified. There's a rantiness here, but also a perfectly good question, namely whether Dummit/Foote is incorrect or the OP is misunderstanding the situation. I agree the polemic should be removed, but I think we're being a bit too negative here. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Mar 4 at 17:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NoahSchweber I think if the question is whether Dummit & Foote is incorrect, the statement in question should appear exactly as written in the book. My copy is in my office, but from a search online, the block quote above is definitely not the "precise definition" from the book. $\endgroup$ – Morgan Rodgers Mar 4 at 18:47
2
$\begingroup$

Dummit and Foote is correct, and your answer was incorrect; the issue is that you seem to be misunderstanding what the quotient group is, and consequently what exactly Dummit and Foote are saying in the quoted passage.

Below I write "$\overline{x}$" for the equivalence class of $x$ modulo $157$.

The key point is that $\overline{768}$ is literally the same thing as $\overline{140}$, and is definitely an element of $\mathbb{Z}/157\mathbb{Z}$. The equality $\mathbb{Z}/157\mathbb{Z}=\{\overline{0},\overline{1},...,\overline{156}\}$ is correct; but it's also true that $\overline{178}\in\mathbb{Z}/157\mathbb{Z}$.

Meanwhile, a straight-up integer like $-768$ isn't an element of $\mathbb{Z}/157\mathbb{Z}$; rather, it's an element of an element of $\mathbb{Z}/157\mathbb{Z}$ (specifically, $-768\in\overline{17}$). That is:

  • $\mathbb{Z}/157\mathbb{Z}$ is a set of sets of integers; as such, no integer is an element of $\mathbb{Z}/157\mathbb{Z}$.

  • On the other hand, every integer is an element of a (unique) element of $\mathbb{Z}/157\mathbb{Z}$; namely, $x\in\overline{x}$.

  • Moreover, every $x$ is in $\overline{y}$ for some (unique) $y\in\{0,1,2,..., 156\}$; in particular, combining this point with the previous one we have that if $x\not\in \{0,1,2,..., 156\}$ then "$\overline{x}$" is just a different name for some $\overline{y}$ with $y\in \{0,1,2,..., 156\}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ After, when there are no confusion, we often use the short writing $x$ for $\bar x$. $\endgroup$ – user649261 Mar 4 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ @user649261 Quite right (and worth pointing out to the OP to forestall later confusion) - but that's notation you don't want to abuse too early! $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Mar 4 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I completely agree :) $\endgroup$ – user649261 Mar 4 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JossieCalderon Not quite. "There are $n$ distinct equivalence classes mod $n$" That's correct. "$\overline{768}$ cannot be by definition an equivalence class" That is incorrect. "$\overline{768}$" is just a different name for $\overline{140}$, in the same way that $0.9999...$ is just a different name for $1$. There are indeed only $157$ distinct classes, and the thing we call $\overline{768}$ is one of them - namely, it's the same thing as $\overline{140}$. $a\not=b$ does not mean $\overline{a}\not=\overline{b}$, and this is in fact the key point about quotient groups. (continued) $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Mar 4 at 19:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Jossie An analogy may help, the only positive rationals are $\,\overline{1/1},\ \overline{1/2},\ \overline{1/3},\overline{2/3},\, \overline{1/4},\overline{3/4}, \ldots$ but this does not imply that $\,\overline{2/4}\not\in\Bbb Q.\,$ It is in $\Bbb Q\,$ since $\, \overline{2/4} = \overline{1/2} = \{n/2n : n\neq 0\}$ all denote exactly the same equivalence class in $\Bbb Q.\ \ $ $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Mar 4 at 20:44

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.