0

I am trying to follow a set of lecture notes on group theory which define $\mathbb{Z}/n$ and addition mod $n$ as follows: $$ \mathbb{Z}/n = \{0, 1, \ldots, n-1\}, \qquad a \oplus b = \begin{cases} a + b & \text{ if $a + b \leq n-1$} \\ a + b - n & \text{ otherwise.} \end{cases} $$ I am trying to prove that this is a group. Closure and the existence of an identity and inverses is clear to me, but associativity of addition is the one thing I'm struggling with. One way is surely casework on whether each constituent sum is less than $n$, but I'm trying to see if there's a more intuitive way to do it.

One idea I had was as follows. The modulo $n$ function is well-defined. So every integer $(a+b) + c$ and $a + (b+c)$ has precisely one remainder upon division by $n$ which lives in $\mathbb{Z}/n$. Addition is associative in $\mathbb{Z}$, meaning that $(a+b) + c$ and $a + (b+c)$ have the same remainder mod $n$. So: \begin{align*} ((a+b)+c) \bmod n &= (a + (b+c)) \bmod n \\ (a+b) \bmod n+ c \bmod n &= a \mod n + (b+c) \bmod n \\ ((a+b) \bmod n \oplus c) &= (a \oplus (b+c) \bmod n) \\ (a \oplus b) \oplus c &= a \oplus (b \oplus c). \end{align*} How does this look?

Cardinality
  • 1,405
  • 3
    This looks fine! In fact, you can make it even shorter by just noting that if $x=y$, then $x\bmod n=y\bmod n$. – HackR Oct 24 '24 at 17:38
  • For a solution-verification question 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 Oct 24 '24 at 18:31
  • @HackR The argument is not fine. Please be more careful. – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '24 at 19:04
  • @BillDubuque To err is human. But you have not provided any correction to the OP (or me) in the comments, and have only tagged duplicates. The OP can look up the proof there, but they (or me) will never learn where they slipped. You can do better. – HackR Oct 24 '24 at 19:12
  • @BillDubuque I apologize. If I edit the original post, would you be willing to tell me where the argument is flawed? I've been struggling with this proof for some time and would really appreciate a nudge in the right direction. – Cardinality Oct 24 '24 at 22:25

0 Answers0