So the statement you made is true, but does not prove what you want it to prove.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that if integers s and t exist such that as + bt = 6, it does not imply that gcd(a, b) equals 6; rather, it indicates that gcd(a, b) divides 6. For example, with a = 4 and b = 6, gcd(a, b) is 2, yet the equation holds. Additionally, if gcd(a, b) equals 6, it confirms that a and b are not relatively prime, as they share common factors greater than 1. However, the argument does not universally prove non-relativity, as shown by the example of a = 2 and b = 3, which are relatively prime despite satisfying the equation. This highlights the nuances in understanding gcd and relative primality.
roam
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
12
If there are integers s,t with as+bt=6, this implies that gcd(a,b)=6, right?

And if gcd(a,b)=6, does this necessarily mean that a and b are not relatively prime since their gcd is not 1? (I have read that two integers a and b are relatively prime if gcd(a,b)=1).
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
roam said:
If there are integers s,t with as+bt=6, this implies that gcd(a,b)=6, right?
No. It simply implies that gcd(a,b) divides 6. For instance take a=4, b =6, then gcd(a,b) = 2 but:
0a+1b = 6

And if gcd(a,b)=6, does this necessarily mean that a and b are not relatively prime since their gcd is not 1? (I have read that two integers a and b are relatively prime if gcd(a,b)=1).
Yes, 6 divides them both so they have a common factor besides 1 (2,3,6 are all common factors). That gcd(a,b)=1 is actually a pretty common definition of integers being relatively prime.

By the way if you wanted to use this argument to prove that a and b are not relatively prime, then unfortunately that doesn't work. Consider for instance:
a = 2, b= 3
which are definitely relatively prime as they are both prime, but:
6b+(-6)a = 6
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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...
Back
Top