The previous proposition always works. However, it can be very tedious to find that first solution if the modulus is bigger. This section is devoted to strategies for simplifying a congruence so that finding such a solution is easier.
Fact5.2.1Strategies that work for simplifying congruences
We have two main types of simplification we can do. First, there are two types of cancellation we can use.
If \(a\), \(b\), and \(n\) all are divisible by a common divisor, we can cancel that out (keeping in mind that we still will need our final solution to be modulo \(n\)).
If \(a\) and \(b\) share a common divisor which is coprime to the modulus, we can cancel it from \(a,b\) (only).
See Propositions 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 for precise statements and proofs.
Secondly, there are two counterintuitive ways that may lead to a simpler congruence after taking remainders.
We could multiply \(a\) and \(b\) by something coprime to \(n\). If, after reducing modulo \(n\), that makes \(a\) or \(b\) smaller, then that was a good idea!
We can add some multiple of \(n\) to \(b\). Again, if that happens to make \(a\) and (the new) \(b\) share a factor, then that was a good idea!
These steps may be applied in any order, though typically the first two are done as often as possible.
Example5.2.2A big example
Let's do a big problem exemplifying all the steps.\begin{equation*}\text{ Solve }30x\equiv 18\text{ (mod }33)\; .\end{equation*}
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.
Now we have \(10x\equiv 6\) (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. \begin{equation*}5x\equiv 3\text{ (mod }11\text{)}\end{equation*}
-
So take \(5x\equiv 3\) (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 \begin{equation*}5x\equiv 14\text{ (mod }11)\end{equation*} and 14 doesn't share a divisor with \(5\) (from the \(5x\)).
If I try \(3+22=25\), giving \begin{equation*}5x\equiv 25\text{ (mod }11)\end{equation*} then \(25\) does share a divisor with \(5\).
Now I can go back and reduce \(5x\equiv 25\) (mod \(11\)) to \begin{equation*}x\equiv 5\text{ (mod }11\text{)}\end{equation*} And that's the answer!
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 \begin{equation*}x=5+11t\text{ for }t\in\mathbb{Z}\end{equation*} 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…
Example5.2.3
Let's finish the previous example gain, but using the other possible counterintuitive step. That was the trick to multiply \(a\) and \(b\) by something which would reduce; ideally it would reduce \([a]\equiv [1]\).
We were at \(5x\equiv 3\) (mod \(11\)).
Multiplying \(a=5\) and \(b=3\) by \(9\), which is coprime to \(11\), gives us \begin{equation*}45x\equiv 27\text{ (mod }11)\; .\end{equation*}
This reduces to \(x\equiv 5\), and gives the same answer as before (provided we remember to get all possible answers modulo 33).
These should have solutions; try completely solving one of these on your own now, before moving on. The exercises provide other interesting practice.
Here are formal statements and proofs of the propositions we used.
Proposition5.2.4Canceling, Part I
If \(d\neq 0\), then \(ad\equiv bd\) (mod \(nd\)) precisely for the same \(a, b, n\) as when \(a\equiv b\) (mod \(n\)).
Like many such proofs, you basically follow your nose.
We write \(ad\equiv bd\) (mod \(nd\)) as \(ad-bd\mid nd\), or \(ad-bd=k(nd)\) for some \(k\in\mathbb{Z}\) We rewrite this as \(d(a-b)=d(kn)\).
Since \(d\neq 0\), \begin{equation*}d(a-b)=d(kn)\text{ is equivalent to saying }a-b=kn\, ,\end{equation*} which is of course by definition saying that \(a\equiv b\) (mod \(n\)).
Since all steps were equivalences, both statements are equivalent.
Proposition5.2.5Canceling, Part II
If \(d\neq 0\) and \(\gcd(d,n)=1\), then \(ad\equiv bd\) (mod \(n\)) precisely for the same \(a, b, n\) as when \(a\equiv b\) (mod \(n\)).
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 about coprimeness and division; what remains should yield us \(a\equiv b\) (mod \(n\))