0

The question is, find the least number when divided by $36, 48$ and $64$ leaves remainder $25, 37$ and $53$ respectively. The answer is said to be $($the $\operatorname{lcm}$ of the three numbers $-11),$ where $36- 25= 48- 37= 64- 53= 11.$

Can anyone please give me the logic for doing this ? I am not familiar with the modular operator method. So any answer not using that would be helpful. Thanks

Ruchi
  • 293
  • $x\equiv -11\pmod{!36,48,64}\iff x\equiv -11\pmod{!\ell},,$ $,\ell = {\rm lcm}(36,48,64) = 576,$ by CCRT. More generally see the result for arithgmetic progressions in the linked dupe. – Bill Dubuque Mar 21 '21 at 10:28
  • If you don't know congruences then rewrite the above in equivalent divisibility form below $$ 36,48,64\mid x+11\iff \ell\mid x!+!11,\ \ {\rm for}\ \ \ell = {\rm lcm}(36,48,64)=576\qquad$$

    So $x$ is a solution iff for some integer $,n,$ we have $,x+11 = n:!\ell\iff x = n:!\ell - 11,,$ whose least positive value is clearly $,\ell - 11,,$ since $,\ell > 11\ \ $.

    – Bill Dubuque Mar 21 '21 at 17:24

1 Answers1

0

So let us assume that the required number is $x$.
Now by the given conditions, \begin{align} x\equiv 25\quad (mod\quad 36) \tag{1}\\ x\equiv 37 \quad(mod \quad 48)\tag{2}\\ x\equiv 53\quad (mod \quad 64)\tag{3}\\ \end{align}
$(1)\implies$ $x=36u+25$ for some $u\in\Bbb{Z}$ $\tag{4}$
Now $x=36u+25$ satisfies $(2)$
So $(2)\implies$ \begin{align} &36u+25\equiv37\quad (mod \quad 48)\\ \text{i.e} \quad & 36u\equiv 12 \quad(mod \quad 48)\\ \text{i.e} \quad & 3u\equiv 1 \quad(mod \quad 4)\\ \end{align} Solution of the above congruence is $u\equiv -1 \quad(mod\quad 4)\implies u\equiv 3 \quad(mod\quad 4)$
So $u=4v+3$ for some $v\in\Bbb{Z}$.
Thus from $(4),\quad x=144v+133$, $\tag{5}$

Again $(5)$ satisfies $(3)$. So
\begin{align} & 144v+133\equiv 53\quad (mod \quad 64)\\ \text{i.e} \quad & 144v\equiv -80 \quad(mod \quad 64)\\ \text{i.e} \quad & 9v\equiv -5 \quad(mod \quad 4)\\ \end{align} Solution of the above congruence is $v\equiv -1 \quad(mod\quad 4)\implies v\equiv 3 \quad(mod\quad 4)$
So $v=4w+3$ for some $w\in\Bbb{Z}$.
Thus from $(5),$$ \quad x=576w+565 \tag{6}$

Hence the required solution is $x\equiv 565 \quad(mod \quad 576)$

Since the least integer (obviously positive) is required, so putting $w=-1$ in $(6)$ yields $x=11$


PS: You could also use Chinese Remainder Theorem to find this value.

Manjoy Das
  • 1,006
  • 7
  • 21
  • Please strive not to add more (dupe) answers to dupes of FAQs. – Bill Dubuque Mar 21 '21 at 10:28
  • Can you please answer using the Chinese remainder theorem, I am not familiar with the concepts of modular operations – Ruchi Mar 21 '21 at 10:53
  • @Ruchi go through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_remainder_theorem#Statement – Manjoy Das Mar 21 '21 at 16:41
  • @BillDubuque how would I know that this is a dupe question? Another thing is what I understood after reading the OP's comment that the OP is not aware of modular operations. So the link that you provided will be bounced over her head. Also the procedure of my solution is far away from CCT. Probably the OP asked for a simpler solution, just like a simple arithmetic. – Manjoy Das Mar 21 '21 at 16:44
  • The linked CCRT post shows how to solve it many other ways, e.g.using lcm, euclid's lemma, prime factorization. – Bill Dubuque Mar 21 '21 at 16:50
  • @BillDubuque that's right. But to understand those methods, first the OP needs to know what a congruence is. But she is not likely aware of that. So somehow my answer also does not satisfy the OP's need. – Manjoy Das Mar 21 '21 at 16:55
  • Please read the linked CCRT post. Three of the four proods do not use congruences. – Bill Dubuque Mar 21 '21 at 16:58
  • I added a comment on the question which eliminates congruence language. – Bill Dubuque Mar 21 '21 at 17:18
  • @ruchi must follow that post. – Manjoy Das Mar 21 '21 at 17:19
  • Btw, your answer is in fact using one of the standard forms of CRT. Also, it is not an answer to the OP's question, since the question asks for the "logic" behind why the answer is their lcm minus $11$, which is certainly not provided by the above rote calculations. Rather, the logic is explained in my comments on the question. – Bill Dubuque Mar 21 '21 at 17:29
  • @billdubuque I admitted that when i came to know that the OP had nothing to do with congruence. Relax mate!!! I appreciated your answer – Manjoy Das Mar 21 '21 at 17:32
  • Even if the OP knew congruences my prior critique would still hold. It's not clear why you think that answers the question. – Bill Dubuque Mar 21 '21 at 17:35