Discrete Math - 4.4.1 Solving Linear Congruences Using the Inverse

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 11. 09. 2024

Komentáře • 42

  • @TearZBot
    @TearZBot Před 4 měsíci +1

    I was having so much trouble understanding this before watching your video. After watching this video just once, it suddenly made perfect sense to me. You're amazing, thank-you so much.

  • @benthomas6828
    @benthomas6828 Před 4 lety +31

    Seems to be a small error at 11:51, you meant to say "take -17 times 6".

  • @ethanjossi9334
    @ethanjossi9334 Před rokem +4

    Thank you so much! This helped me understand it. Video production quality was extremely well done.

  • @lightning_11
    @lightning_11 Před rokem +4

    Thank you so much, this process was so confusing before and now it makes sense.

  • @nitac2237
    @nitac2237 Před rokem +3

    Thank you so much . i finally understand the concept. all other methods were so difficult.

  • @Treant.
    @Treant. Před 2 lety +2

    Thank you! You were the only one I can understood this topic.

  • @Charlakin
    @Charlakin Před 3 měsíci

    Fabulous video, this made everything so much more sense!

  • @Mauri-11
    @Mauri-11 Před 5 měsíci +1

    When it came time for my exam and I implemented step 4 shown at 12:00, my professor ended up taking points off for notation lol. Turns out he expected a congruence symbol rather than an equals sign. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • @jaydeestrada5965
    @jaydeestrada5965 Před 3 lety +9

    shouldn't it be a*a^-1 is congruent to 1 (mod m), rather than equals!

    • @biplavpoudel
      @biplavpoudel Před 3 lety +2

      Yes you are right. The equal sign had me confused.

  • @KerzL6324
    @KerzL6324 Před 4 měsíci

    You just saved my life, thank you

  • @bluejimmy168
    @bluejimmy168 Před 4 lety +4

    At 2:11, you said that a and m has to be relatively prime. Why does it have to be relatively prime? What happens if a and m are not relatively prime? Does it mean no inverse if a and m are not relatively prime?

    • @gx_beatz
      @gx_beatz Před rokem +1

      relatively prime means, gcd{a,m} = 1, so the linear congruence has only one solution in the range 0

  • @gianlucasperti4159
    @gianlucasperti4159 Před rokem

    Sorry I have some questions:
    1)If we have a linear congruence the number of solutions will be GCD(a,n), in our case it's 1 and it has one solution, but should I see it has ONE SET of solutions? Because the solution would be infinite by adding the n value.
    2)If I have a GCD =13 how do i represents these sets of solutions?
    3)Will we haver have infinite sets of solutions? (I think no because GCD should be equals to infinite but i'm curious)
    Thank you

  • @hafizabdulmanan2989
    @hafizabdulmanan2989 Před 3 lety +11

    4.5 and 4.6 lectures are missing

    • @sadaq4220
      @sadaq4220 Před rokem +1

      Because didn't pay school fees son

  • @ernestodones9030
    @ernestodones9030 Před rokem

    question, is not 6 (mod 37) = 6? therefore after substitution in the initial equation we got 13x=6 and then simply x = 6/13? why can't we just do that?

  • @sagivalia5041
    @sagivalia5041 Před rokem

    So the solution for the last question can be written as an arithmetic series with d=37?

  • @sarag.regassa7947
    @sarag.regassa7947 Před 4 měsíci

    This is amazing!! Thank you so muchh!!

  • @abdullahalhashmi5739
    @abdullahalhashmi5739 Před rokem

    Finally I understand it, thank you very much.

  • @m-qz1mi
    @m-qz1mi Před rokem

    its 1=2(37)-9(13) inverse is -9 not -17. I suppose you did some mistake when u were working backwards from the Euclidean algo

  • @pravarmishra7192
    @pravarmishra7192 Před rokem

    splendid teaching thanks.👍🏻

  • @redgrain
    @redgrain Před rokem +1

    so clean

  • @AbleBrawa
    @AbleBrawa Před 3 měsíci

    Love you😅❤

  • @cantfindme8664
    @cantfindme8664 Před rokem

    Thank you so much

  • @RidhikaMadan
    @RidhikaMadan Před rokem

    Thank you so much!

  • @fedebailaque3
    @fedebailaque3 Před rokem

    Thank you

  • @colonelh.s.l.3834
    @colonelh.s.l.3834 Před rokem

    Hi, how did you get 3(2) = 5(1) +1 to begin with?

    • @Rushh.n
      @Rushh.n Před rokem

      in this case we are working with mod 5 and if you multiply the inverse with (a) then you should get : a x (inverse of a) = 1 (mod 5), this means that when we divide 5 into a x (inverse a) it should leave us with a remainder of 1. Since 3 and 5 are simple numbers were able to guess a working combination of 3 x 2 = (5 x 1) + 1, which does give us 6 = 1 (mod 5)

  • @kylecho2912
    @kylecho2912 Před 2 lety +2

    I’d prefer to use extended Euclidean to find gcd and certificate of correctness in one shot

  • @SortedSand
    @SortedSand Před rokem

    Add a video for Theorem 4.5.1 and 4.5.2

    • @SawFinMath
      @SawFinMath  Před rokem +2

      My students aren't required to learn section 4.5. Thus, no video.

  • @StarmonYT
    @StarmonYT Před rokem

    I just- I don’t understand, how can -17 * 13 be 1, thats not how math works, if you multiplied -17 with 13x you’d get -221X, I can’t wrap my head around how we change that

    • @williamh.8603
      @williamh.8603 Před rokem +3

      -17 times 13 but mod 37 so -221 mod 37, -37 (6)= -222 + 1 equals -221 therefore our remainder is 1 so 1= -17(13) mod 37

    • @labiribiri1901
      @labiribiri1901 Před 9 měsíci

      ​@@williamh.8603 perfect case of " trust me bro, it works. Here's some math that barley correlates to it" 😂

  • @labiribiri1901
    @labiribiri1901 Před 9 měsíci

    Very confusing and poorly elaborated on. You have a tendency to overcomplicate your lectures, why?
    This topic isnt hard to understand yet out of the dozens of methods to solve it you find the most abstract and confusing to teach, poor students 😞

    • @SawFinMath
      @SawFinMath  Před 9 měsíci +3

      Karen, you are welcome to post your own video on the subject.

    • @aditya3984
      @aditya3984 Před 9 měsíci

      @@SawFinMath someone's mad

  • @piotrjaga6929
    @piotrjaga6929 Před 2 lety

    thank you