0

Suppose I have the following simple congruence $bx \equiv y$ (mod $p$) where $p$ is a prime.

I was wondering if I could keep replacing $b$ with any of the following until $b$ would reach $1$ and therefore solving for $x$:

$b' = p - kb$ for some integer $k$, which is really $p$ mod $b$,

or

$b' = b - qp$ for some integer $q$, which is really $b$ mod $p$.

Let's say we have $9x \equiv 3$ (mod $5$) and that I can replace coefficient of $x$ by any of the above:

  • So first step I do $b$ mod $p$: $4x \equiv 3$ (mod $5$)
  • Then $p$ mod $b$: $x \equiv 3$ (mod $5$), but this is wrong, it should be $-3$.

If I write this out with variables I should be able to do all of this:

$bx \equiv y$ (mod $p$)

$(p-kb)x \equiv y$ (mod $p$), or

$(b - qp)x \equiv y$ (mod $p$).

In the end it seems that the sign of the final result is always wrong, as in the above example I got $3$, but the correct is $-3$. Can someone tell me what am I doing wrong here?

Bill Dubuque showed a similar thing here: Euclid lemma proof

Michael Munta
  • 175
  • 1
    You can do it only when $p\not | b$. If it doesn't divide, then there is a $b'$ such that $bb'\equiv 1\mod{p}$. Multiplying by this $b'$ makes the coefficient of $x$ 1. –  Feb 12 '19 at 09:10
  • @rationalpi $p$ and $b$ are coprime and I know that inverse exists, I am trying to understand why replacing $b$ by what I have shown gives incorrect sign to the solution. – Michael Munta Feb 12 '19 at 10:10

1 Answers1

0

You can certainly replace $b$ with anything which is congruent to it modulo $p$, such as the second case of $b' = b - qp$ for some integer $q$. However, there is usually no direct connection to the original modular equation if you replace $b$ instead by something which is congruent to p mod b, such as your first case of

$$b' = p - kb \equiv -kb \pmod p \tag{1}\label{eq1}$$

for some integer $k$. To see this, replacing $b$ with $b'$ in the original modular equation of

$$bx \equiv y \pmod p \tag{2}\label{eq2}$$

gives

$$b'x \equiv y \pmod p \; \; \Rightarrow \; \; \left(-kb\right)x \equiv y \pmod p \tag{3}\label{eq3}$$

Next, \eqref{eq2} - \eqref{eq3} gives

$$\left(k + 1\right)bx \equiv 0 \pmod p \tag{4}\label{eq4}$$

Thus, this requires that $k + 1$, $b$ and/or $x$ be a multiple of $p$. Unless $y$ is a multiple of $p$, this means that $k \equiv -1 \pmod p$, so \eqref{eq1} gives that $b' \equiv b \pmod p$, i.e., it doesn't change the original modular equation of \eqref{eq2}.

With your example in the question text of $9x \equiv 3 \pmod 5$ and $x \equiv 3 \pmod 5$, note that subtracting the second from the first gives $8x \equiv 0 \pmod 5$, so $x \equiv 0 \pmod 5$, but then you can't have $9x \equiv 3 \pmod 5$! Using a $k \not\equiv -1 \pmod p$ will usually lead to a contradiction like this, or at least it will not give you the correct answer, depending on what steps you follow.

John Omielan
  • 47,976
  • Actually now that I think about it it is possible. We want $(p - kb)x \equiv y$ to appear so we have to multiply both sides of $bx \equiv y$ by $k$ to get $kbx \equiv ky$. $kbx$ should be negative so we also multiply both sides by $(-1)$. Now we have $-kbx \equiv -ky$. Adding $px \equiv 0$ (mod $p$) on the left side of the congruence we get $px - kbx \equiv -ky$ (mod $p$), which is $(p - kb)x \equiv -ky$ (mod $p$). We can iterate like this until reaching $1$ and we will have a solution for $x$ and also if we multiply all the $k$'s we used in the algorithm we will get inverse of $b$ mod $p$. – Michael Munta Feb 12 '19 at 22:17
  • @MichaelMunta Note that the new equation of $\left(p - kb\right)x \equiv -ky \pmod p$ is not the same as the original one of $bx \equiv y \pmod p$ where $b$ is replaced by $b' = p - kb$. I provided my answer based on what you were asking in the question. Also, keep in mind your new equation comes from just multiplying both sides by $-k$ to get that $-kb \equiv -ky \pmod p$. If you are willing to iterate through all congruences, it's generally simpler & easier to just do that for all $b$ to find which one gives $bx \equiv y \pmod p$. Is there any particular reason you don't want to do that? – John Omielan Feb 12 '19 at 22:22
  • No particular reasons. Just wanted to see if something like this was possible. – Michael Munta Feb 12 '19 at 22:27
  • 1
    @MichaelMunta By changing the equation as you describe in your comment above, it is possible as we both agree. However, I don't see any advantage you will usually get by doing it. Nonetheless, I encourage you to keep trying things like this to both learn more and, you never know, you might find something new & useful some day as well. – John Omielan Feb 12 '19 at 22:29