I can't find the multiplicative inverse of 3? This is what I did.
6/3 * (MI of 3) (mod 6)
6/3 (mod 6)
A= 3
B= ?
M = 6
(A * B) % M = 1
(3 * B) % 6 =1
Some body please guide me how can I solve this?
Zulfi.
I can't find the multiplicative inverse of 3? This is what I did.
6/3 * (MI of 3) (mod 6)
6/3 (mod 6)
A= 3
B= ?
M = 6
(A * B) % M = 1
(3 * B) % 6 =1
Some body please guide me how can I solve this?
Zulfi.
A number $m$ will have a multiplicative inverse mod $n$ if and only if $m$ and $n$ are coprime (have no common divisors except 1). This is clearly not the case for 3 and 6.
See section Multiplicative group of integers modulo m for example.
Let $w$ be the multiplicative inverse modulo $6$ of $3$.
That means $3w \equiv 1 \pmod 6$.
That means i) $6|3w - 1$ (definition) or alternatively that ii) $3w = 6k + 1$ for some integer $k$ (not quite the definition but something equivalent to the definition that IMO is more intuitive)
i) As $3|6$ that means $3|3w -1$ and $3|-1$.
ii) $3w = 6k + 1$ means $w = 2k + \frac 13$.
i) is clearly false. ii) means $w$ is not an integer??????
....
So what do we conclude?
We conclude ..... $3$ does not have a multiplicative inverse modulo $6$.
Which raises the two questions.
a) Why did we think it did? and
b) When does a number $m$ have a multiplicative inverse modulo $n$?
....
I think the answer to a) is Because we can say the words "multiplicative inverse o $3$ modulo $6$" in the same way we can say "a triangle with four sides", "the real square root of $-1$", "$7$ divided by $0$" or "the first seven even primes greater than $49$" . Just because we can say something doesn't mean it exists.
b) If $m$ has a multiplicative inverse modulo $n$ then there is an integer $w$ so that $wm \equiv 1 \pmod n$. Or in other words there is an integer $k$ so that $wm = kn + 1$ or $wm -kn = 1$.
By Bezout's Lemma, this occurs if and only if $\gcd(m,n) = 1$.
So......
$m$ has a multiplicative inverse modulo $n$ if and only if $m$ and $n$ are relatively prime.