Can anyone please review/verify this proof of a nonzero integer a?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math100
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integer Proof
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving properties of the greatest common divisor (GCD) for a nonzero integer a. It establishes that gcd(a, 0) equals abs(a), gcd(a, a) equals abs(a), and gcd(a, 1) equals 1, using definitions and properties of GCD. Participants question whether the proofs rely on basic properties rather than the formal definition of GCD. There is a specific concern about justifying why gcd(a, 0) cannot exceed abs(a). The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in the foundational definitions used in these proofs.
Math100
Messages
816
Reaction score
229
Homework Statement
For a nonzero integer a, show that gcd(a, 0)=abs(a), gcd(a, a)=abs(a), and gcd(a, 1)=1.
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof: First, we will show that gcd(a, 0)=abs(a).
Suppose a is a nonzero integer such that a##\neq##0.
Note that gcd(a, 0)##\le##abs(a) by definition of the greatest common divisor.
Since abs(a) divides both a and 0,
we have that gcd(a, 0)=abs(a).
Therefore, for a nonzero integer a,
we have shown that gcd(a, 0)=abs(a).
Next, we will show that gcd(a, a)=abs(a).
Suppose a is a nonzero integer such that a##\neq##0.
Note that gcd(a, a)##\le##abs(a) by definition of the greatest common divisor.
Since abs(a) divides a, we have that gcd(a, a)=abs(a).
Therefore, for a nonzero integer a,
we have shown that gcd(a, a)=abs(a).
Finally, we will show that gcd(a, 1)=1.
Suppose a is a nonzero integer such that a##\neq##0.
Note that gcd(a, 1)##\le##1 by definition of the greatest common divisor.
Since 1 divides both a and 1,
we have that gcd(a, 1)=1.
Therefore, for a nonzero integer a,
we have shown that gcd(a, 1)=1.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Math100 said:
Next, we will show that gcd(a, a)=abs(a).
Suppose a is a nonzero integer such that a##\neq##0.
Note that gcd(a, a)##\le##abs(a) by definition of the greatest common divisor.

Are you sure you are using the definition of GCD there and not some basic property that can be proved from the definition?
 
PeroK said:
Are you sure you are using the definition of GCD there and not some basic property that can be proved from the definition?
No, I am not sure. What's the definition of GCD then?
 
First, we will show that gcd(a, 0)=abs(a).
Suppose gcd(a, 0)=d, where d is an integer and a is a nonzero integer.
Note that d divides both a and 0.
Since each nonzero integer divides 0,
it follows that d is the largest divisor of a.
Thus, we have that gcd(a, 0)=abs(a).

Is this right for the first subproof of this problem?
 
Math100 said:
First, we will show that gcd(a, 0)=abs(a).
Suppose gcd(a, 0)=d, where d is an integer and a is a nonzero integer.
Note that d divides both a and 0.
Since each nonzero integer divides 0,
it follows that d is the largest divisor of a.
Thus, we have that gcd(a, 0)=abs(a).

Is this right for the first subproof of this problem?
I don't see that you tackle the only real issue here which is why we can't have ##gcd(a, 0) > |a|##.
 
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...