0

I did not get any answers for the following questions:

  1. Which space do natural square-symmetric matrices belong to?
  2. Sum preserving transformations of square symmetric matrices with natural elements

Therefore, I decided to follow a more fundamental approach to learning (abstract) algebra on my own. I am currently in the early stages and this question may seem too simple.

Theorem

Prove that $\forall a,b \in \mathbb{Z}\ \exists! q,r \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $a = bq +r$ where $0\leq r < a$

A Beginning

My approach to this problem was a little more algorithmic than the one offered in the textbook:

Consider a set $R = \{a-bq\}\ \forall q\in\mathbb{Z}$.

For simplicity, I started with $a\geq 0$, $b>0$, and $a\geq b$.

Considering a sequence $Q = \{q | q = 0,1,2,3,\cdots\}$.

This generates a sequence $R'=\{r'\}$ such that, algorithmically, and speaking intuitively, $r'\in \mathbb{N}$ minimizes at the right value of $q$.

I am having difficulty proving this rigorously. Some help here.

P.S. I can totally understand the approach given in the textbook following the well-ordering principle, but I want to prove it using my approach and extend it to negative integers as well. 


Edit

I am going to outline the proof here and will be happy to shift this to an answer if the question is reopened. Let me first state the well-ordering principle.

The Well-ordering Principle: Every set $S=\{s|s\in\mathbb{Z}^+\}$ contains a smallest member.

Proof Using Set Theory

Consider a set $S = \{ a-bk|k\in\mathbb{Z}, a-bk \geq 0 \}$

Case 1: $0 \in S$

$b|a$ and $r=0$. This is the trivial case.

Case 2: $0 \notin S$

$S$ is non-empty because if $a>0$ then $a-b\cdot 0 \in S$ and if $a<0$ then $a-b(2a)\in S$. Now, according to the well-ordering principle, $S$ contains a smallest member $k$ which we are going to call $q$ and $r = a-bq$. $r>0$ by definition. To prove $r<b$, we use proof by contradiction:

If $r \geq b$, then $a-b(q+1)= a-bq-b = r-b \geq 0$, so that $a-b(q+1)\in S$. But $a-b(q+1)<r$, and $r$ is the smallest member of $S$. Therefore, $r<b$

To prove the uniqueness of $q$ and $r$, assume $q'$ and $r'$ satisfy the given conditions.

$a=bq+r, 0\leq r < b$ and $a=bq'+r', 0\leq r' < b$. On substracting the two equations, we obtain $b(q-q')=r'-r$ and $b|(r'-r)$. However, $0 \leq r'-r < r' < b$ which implies $r'-r=0$ and $q'=q$, since positive $b$ is dividing a smaller positive number, which is only possible if the smaller positive number is $0$.

This proof is perfectly logical and, if you ask me, quite elegant as well. I am looking for a more algorithmic proof to this problem.

ananta
  • 431
  • 2
    It seems you confused the condition $0 \leq r < a$ with minimizing $|r'|$. These may not be the same!

    Assuming $a \geq 0, b > 0, a \geq b$, then you may need to redefine the set $R$ to be $$ R = \left{a - bq ; \bigg| ; q \in \mathbb{Z} , \wedge , q \leq \frac{a}{b} \right}. $$

    Then your subset $Q \subseteq \mathbb{Z_+}$ is bounded on the positive side (i.e., $q$ cannot be larger than some amount), and so it contains its maximum. Then all you have to do from there is prove that the set $R$ must contain its minimum, $r'$, and that $r' = a - b \max(Q)$.

    – Pavan C. Dec 02 '23 at 18:58
  • A proof will involve well-ordering or induction (or equivalent) no matter how "more algorithmically" you rewrite it (e.g. writing $,q,$ using floor / ceiling on $,a/b).,$ Of course there are many prior questions on such a basic topic. Please search for answers before posting questions. – Bill Dubuque Dec 02 '23 at 22:54
  • There are various ways to define quotients and remainders when generalizing from $\Bbb N$ so $\Bbb Z,,$ e.g. see here – Bill Dubuque Dec 02 '23 at 22:57
  • @BillDubuque I always go through similar questions shown by the site when posting any questions. Given my questions are titled and formatted well, the site should show any related questions, but it doesn't. None of the questions, which are somewhat relevant to the question I asked, you suggested showed up in the similar questions, I have posted a question on meta for the same. – ananta Dec 03 '23 at 11:19
  • @BillDubuque how is the well-ordering principle and induction equivalent? – ananta Dec 04 '23 at 16:31

0 Answers0