I'm trying to solve the following modular arithmetic question using the Chinese Remainder Theorem, using this link. (We learned a different method in our class, but I found this easier to grasp). $$x \equiv 1 (\text{mod} \ 5)$$ $$x \equiv 2 (\text{mod} \ 7)$$ $$x \equiv 3 (\text{mod} \ 9)$$ $$x \equiv 4 (\text{mod} \ 11)$$
I then represented $x$ as a sum of $4$ boxes, such that the first term is "related" to $\text{mod} \ 5$ (i.e. the $1^{st}$ term will not be made $0$ due to the $\text{mod} \ 5$), the second term is related to $\text{mod} \ 7$ and so on. Here's what I mean by "related":
If we only consider $\text{mod} \ 5$, the value of box $1$ is $693$, the value of box $2$ is $495$, then $693 \ \text{mod} \ 5 = 3$ but $495 \ \text{mod} \ 5 = 0$. Likewise, if we only consider $\text{mod} \ 7$, then the value of box $1$ is $693 \ \text{mod} \ 7 = 0$ but $495 \ \text{mod} \ 7=5$. And so on...
After doing all that, I have $$x = (7 \times 9 \times 11) + (5 \times 9 \times 11) + (5 \times 7 \times 11) + (5 \times 7 \times 9)$$
The next step is applying the $\text{mod} \ 5$ to $x$: $$\begin{align} x \ \text{mod} \ 3 &\equiv 691 \ \text{mod} \ 5 + 495 \ \text{mod} \ 5 + 385 \ \text{mod} \ 5 + 315 \ \text{mod} \ 5 \\ &\equiv 693 \ \text{mod} \ 5 + 0 + 0 + 0 \\ &\equiv 693 \ \text{mod} \ 5 \\ &\equiv 3 \ (\text{mod} \ 5) \end{align}$$
This is where I get stuck. In the video, and the video doesn't explain how to deal with such a scenario.
PS - If there is a more "intuitive" or more efficient version of the Chinese Remainder Theorem, I'd be grateful if you could share it.
PPS - Sorry if the question is a bit awkwardly formulated. As you can guess this is my first doing this.
$x\pmod{17}$gives $x\pmod{17}$ and$x\mod{17}$gives $x\mod{17}$ Of course, if you don't like the spacing, you will have to do what you did with \text or use \operatorname. – saulspatz Jun 06 '20 at 15:45solution-verificationquestion to be on topic you must specify precisely which step in the proof you question, and why so. This site is not meant to be used as a proof checking machine. – Bill Dubuque Jun 24 '24 at 17:51