1

$m$ is some natural number. Why is $15m=0\pmod {18}$ equivalent to $3m=0 \pmod {18}$?

This is my question basically. I don't understand why that's true.

hardmath
  • 37,015
Matam
  • 301

3 Answers3

5

Because you get one equation by multiplying the other by $5$, and $5$ is invertible modulo $18$ (namely, $5\cdot 11\equiv 1 \pmod{18}$).

So if $3m\equiv 0\pmod{18}$ then also $5\cdot 3m\equiv 5\cdot 0\pmod{18}$ which is the same as $15m\equiv 0\pmod{18}$. And if $15m\equiv 0\pmod{18}$ then also $11\cdot 15m\equiv 11\cdot 0\pmod{18}$ which is the same as $3m\equiv 0\pmod{18}$.

2

The statement: $$15m\equiv 0 \bmod 18$$ means that 18 divides $15m$, i.e., there's an integer number $k$ with $$ 18k = 15m. $$ (That's straight from the definition of modular equivalence.)

If you subtract $18m$ from both sides, you get $$ 18(k-m) = -3m $$ and if you then negate, you get $$ 18(m-k) = 3m $$ That shows that $3m$ is also divisible by 18, which is the same as $$ 3m \equiv 0 \bmod 18.$$

When you really understand what I've written, look at @HenningMakholm's answer for possible deeper insight.

John Hughes
  • 93,729
1

We have to show that $18|15m\iff 18|3m$

Clearly if $18|3m$ then $18|5(3m)$

The hard part is showing that if $18|15m$ then $18|3m$.

Suppose that $18|15m$, then there exists an integer $k$ with $5\times 3\times m=18\times k$.

This implies that $5$ divides $18\times k$, since $5$ is a prime we conclude $5$ divides $k$ by Euclid's lemma, so $k=5j$.

Finally notice $5\times3\times m=18\times 5\times 5\implies 3m=18j\implies 18|3m$

Asinomás
  • 105,651