Discrete Math - 4.4.1 Solving Linear Congruences Using the Inverse

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 20 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 46

  • @TearZBot
    @TearZBot 7 місяців тому +5

    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 4 роки тому +35

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

    • @YOKYOK-DRAUDE420-wn1uy
      @YOKYOK-DRAUDE420-wn1uy 9 місяців тому

      me to i was confuse hahahahahahah

    • @danyeeeul
      @danyeeeul 9 днів тому

      lmao thank god, i was like understanding everything and then when she said times 13 i was like... wtf and got worried i wasnt understanding properly

  • @ethanjossi9334
    @ethanjossi9334 2 роки тому +4

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

  • @Mauri-11
    @Mauri-11 8 місяців тому +2

    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)_/¯

  • @lightning_11
    @lightning_11 2 роки тому +4

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

  • @bluejimmy168
    @bluejimmy168 4 роки тому +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 Рік тому +1

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

  • @Treant.
    @Treant. 2 роки тому +2

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

  • @nitac2237
    @nitac2237 Рік тому +3

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

  • @jaydeestrada5965
    @jaydeestrada5965 4 роки тому +9

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

    • @biplavpoudel
      @biplavpoudel 3 роки тому +2

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

  • @Charlakin
    @Charlakin 6 місяців тому

    Fabulous video, this made everything so much more sense!

  • @sagivalia5041
    @sagivalia5041 Рік тому

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

  • @gianlucasperti4159
    @gianlucasperti4159 Рік тому

    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 4 роки тому +11

    4.5 and 4.6 lectures are missing

    • @sadaq4220
      @sadaq4220 Рік тому +2

      Because didn't pay school fees son

  • @KerzL6324
    @KerzL6324 8 місяців тому

    You just saved my life, thank you

  • @hamzaanjum-c8p
    @hamzaanjum-c8p 3 години тому

    why you dont teach cryptograohy

  • @ernestodones9030
    @ernestodones9030 Рік тому

    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?

    • @jonfroy6791
      @jonfroy6791 18 днів тому

      6mod37 = 6 but 6(mod 37) is looking for a number that when modded by 37 will give you 6

  • @pravarmishra7192
    @pravarmishra7192 2 роки тому

    splendid teaching thanks.👍🏻

  • @colonelh.s.l.3834
    @colonelh.s.l.3834 2 роки тому

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

    • @Rushh.n
      @Rushh.n 2 роки тому

      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)

  • @m-qz1mi
    @m-qz1mi Рік тому

    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

  • @abdullahalhashmi5739
    @abdullahalhashmi5739 2 роки тому

    Finally I understand it, thank you very much.

  • @sarag.regassa7947
    @sarag.regassa7947 8 місяців тому

    This is amazing!! Thank you so muchh!!

  • @SortedSand
    @SortedSand 2 роки тому

    Add a video for Theorem 4.5.1 and 4.5.2

    • @SawFinMath
      @SawFinMath  2 роки тому +2

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

  • @kylecho2912
    @kylecho2912 3 роки тому +2

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

  • @aka_berkay
    @aka_berkay 2 роки тому +1

    so clean

  • @cantfindme8664
    @cantfindme8664 Рік тому

    Thank you so much

  • @RidhikaMadan
    @RidhikaMadan 2 роки тому

    Thank you so much!

  • @agamsahni8108
    @agamsahni8108 Місяць тому

    Thank u

  • @StarmonYT
    @StarmonYT Рік тому +1

    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 Рік тому +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 Рік тому

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

  • @AbleBrawa
    @AbleBrawa 7 місяців тому

    Love you😅❤

  • @piotrjaga6929
    @piotrjaga6929 2 роки тому

    thank you

  • @labiribiri1901
    @labiribiri1901 Рік тому

    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  Рік тому +4

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

    • @aditya3984
      @aditya3984 Рік тому

      @@SawFinMath someone's mad

  • @fedebailaque3
    @fedebailaque3 2 роки тому

    Thank you