Is There a Name for This Theorem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dschumanji
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether there is a theorem stating that if b divides a squared (b|a²), then b must also divide a (b|a) for integers a and b. It is clarified that this implication is not generally true, as demonstrated by the example of 9 dividing 36 but not dividing 6. The condition for the implication to hold is that b must be a prime number or have no repeated prime factors. The validity of the statement can be proven using Euclid's lemma, which confirms that if b is prime and divides a², then it must also divide a. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the specific conditions under which the theorem applies.
Dschumanji
Messages
153
Reaction score
1
Is there a theorem that says when b|a2 → b|a is true for integers a and b?

If so, what is it called?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I hope not, since it isn't generally true. 9|36, but not 9|6. You would need that b is a prime (or at least, has no repeated prime factors).
 
OP, did you mean to reverse those...?

b|a \; \rightarrow \; b|a^{2}

Is certainly true.
 
Last edited:
daniel.e2718 said:
Is certainly true.

But it's hardly worth calling it a theorem, since it's just a special case of ##b|a \rightarrow b|ac##.
 
Dschumanji said:
Is there a theorem that says when b|a2 → b|a is true for integers a and b?

If so, what is it called?

That is true whenever b is prime. You can prove it by using euclid's lemma.

Let b be prime. Suppose b|a2. Then b|aa, and, by euclid's lemma, b|a or b|a. Hence b|a.
 
The statement holds true whenever |\mu(b)|=1.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
4K
3
Replies
105
Views
6K
Replies
72
Views
7K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top