Explore related knowledge and questions →

Question 9088: Positive-Modulus Guard before Natural Remainder Comparison

On this page
  1. Original question and givens
  2. Definition and scope
  3. Step-by-step derivation
  4. Reverse checks
  5. Result
  6. This question review and source binding

Return to catalogue page 46

← Question derivation index · Original question batch

R0017-09088 · q-20261013-advance-20261018-r05-modular-congruence-0013

Original question and givens

Fix modulus n=0, natural a=43, b=72. Give (n, a, b, n>0?, [a mod n,b mod n] or not-evaluated, congruent? or not-evaluated). This entry excludes zero-modulus conventions.

  • G001 — Fix modulus n=0, natural a=43, b=72. Give (n, a, b, n>0?, [a mod n,b mod n] or not-evaluated, congruent? or not-evaluated). This entry excludes zero-modulus conventions.

Definition and scope

Use the original question domain, assumptions and cited MKO definitions. This item has second-context mathematical and bilingual review, with the model, answer and every arithmetic step independently recomputed from the original parameters; the source question remains a candidate.

Step-by-step derivation

S001 · implies

Before

fixed natural modulus candidate=0

After

positive modulus=No

Conditions: none

Congruence compares remainders at one positive modulus,not numerical equality.Multiplicative preservation does not permit unconditional cancellation of a common factor.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: fixed_positive_modulus_scope · Uses: G001

S002 · implies

Before

n=0;a=43;b=72

After

remainders=not evaluated;congruence=not evaluated

Conditions: none

When the modulus is not positive,both remainders and congruence remain unevaluated.Do not manufacture a truth value from an API default.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: zero_modulus_no_remainder_evaluation · Uses: G001, S001

Reverse checks

  • S002 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S001 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.

Result

(0, 43, 72, No, not-evaluated, not-evaluated)

The full substitutions and premise checks give the original answer; source identity,format and status are unchanged.

This question review and source binding

Review date: 2026-10-26

Original questions, answers, step expressions, numeric ASTs and historical records are retained. Source candidate labels remain historical and are not overwritten as formal proof.

Source hashes and review receipts
  • input commit: 0f7be61e2c22317a4075561dc822c87d881a50db
  • original question SHA-256: 9324abf89687101462c303c43169606a8af4d1dc9bd1aa99b7773c5a3519bb41
  • candidate record SHA-256: e7709316dd2fc8c0fbf6def181cb0d9e7fbed53fb17359561f180b88467e6db6
  • semantic review receipt SHA-256: abad28564830bb9b6ef069ca5a1aa128ce7b1a67a5cb8fe6d868a06db73bcfb8
  • question-first witness SHA-256: 43126988479968837abe086263dac1b24c37463ad80e00d2e280a7b8e9036a04
  • Lean: NOT_RUN · human review: NOT_PERFORMED
Same-source full JSON