given x ≡ 1 (mod 3). Is x ≡ 4 (mod 3) true?

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions.

- anonymous

given x ≡ 1 (mod 3). Is x ≡ 4 (mod 3) true?

- jamiebookeater

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- ganeshie8

Below is not required but it helps in relating congruences and divisibility
\[x\equiv 1 \pmod 3 \implies 3 \mid (x-1) \implies 3\mid [(x-1) - 3] \\\implies 3\mid (x-4)\implies x\equiv 4\pmod{3}\]

- UsukiDoll

modulo 3 looks like
[0,1,2]
though?

- UsukiDoll

like on
x ≡ 1 (mod 3).
it's x is congruent to the remainder 1 in modulo 3. I can see that part... it's x ≡ 4 (mod 3) that's giving me a hard time... because that's x is congruent to the remainder 4 in modulo 3.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

- ganeshie8

Notice that \(3\mid (3k)\). This is same as saying \(3k\equiv 0 \pmod{3} \).
Therefore \(x\equiv x+0\equiv x+3k\pmod{3}\)

- anonymous

so basically I can add multiple of 3 on either sides, and it still holds?

- anonymous

like
x + 3 ≡ 1 (mod 3) holds?

- ganeshie8

Yes, congruence is just a neat notation that hides the messy divisibility rules

- ganeshie8

\(x\equiv y\pmod{n}\) and \(y\equiv z\pmod{n}\) implies \(x\equiv z\pmod{n}\)
transitive property holds, so you can replace \(3\) by \(0\) in modulo 3

- Empty

Whenever I use mods I end up just subtracting off the number until I have some number less than what I want, like this:
\[9 \equiv 5 \equiv 1 \mod 4 \]
So here I just kept subtracting 4 off, rather than trying to think "ok what's the remainder if I divide by 4?"
There are a bunch of cute tricks you can use too, like:
\[100^{2523672} \mod 3\]
just rewrite 100 as 3*33+1 and we have:
\[(3*33+1)^{klfaljag} \mod 3\]
\[(0*33+1)^{lsdjf0aug} \mod 3\]
\[1 \mod 3\]

- anonymous

ok. I know it seems kinda trivial but I just want to make sure I really understand it.
x + 3k ≡ 1 + 3s (mod 3), for some integer k,s, holds ? right? ^^

- anonymous

actually for *all* integer s,k

- ganeshie8

x + 3k ≡ 1 + 3s (mod 3)
thats not so important, all you need to do is to refer back to the definition :
\[a\equiv b\pmod{n}\iff n\mid (a-b)\]

- anonymous

@Empty i'm not quite there yet but I might find that useful one day ^^

- ganeshie8

the moment you see 3k, and if you're in modulo 3, you see that 3k is divisible by 3 :
\[3\mid (3k) \iff 3k\equiv 0 \pmod{3}\]
so you replace \(3k\) by \(0\)

- Empty

A way to help think of it is all even and all odd numbers can be represented as 2n or 2n+1. So you can see in mod 2, all even numbers are 0 and all odd numbers are 1.

- anonymous

@ganeshie8 ah i see.
x ≡ 4 (mod 3)
x ≡ 1 + 3 (mod 3)
and since 3 is a multiple of 3, replace 3 with 0.
x - 99 ≡ 1 (mod 3). And since 99 is also a multiple of 3, replace it with 0.
and x + 3k ≡ 1 + 3s (mod 3), replace 3k and 3s with 0.

- ganeshie8

Yes, but careful, congruence relations don't work in both directions always

- ganeshie8

```
given x ≡ 1 (mod 3). Is x ≡ 4 (mod 3) true?
```
you should start with whats given, not what you want to prove

- anonymous

ah yes. I just need to see what you can validly add to either side (or both).
So in general,
a ≡ b (mod c)
implies a ≡ b + kc (mod c)
implies a + kc ≡ b (mod c)
implies a + kc ≡ b + sc (mod c)

- ganeshie8

Yep, adding/subtracting a multiple of "c" to a side(s) wont change the congruence because :
\[c\mid (a-b) \implies c\mid [(a-b) + kc]\]

- IrishBoy123

"."

- anonymous

yep! I understand everything now. Thank you!

- ganeshie8

np

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.