MHB Can GCD of m and n be forced to equal 1 for given equations and conditions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Terry1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around determining if the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two equations, m = x + y + 1 and n = x - y, can be forced to equal 1 under specific conditions. The participants explore the relationship between m and n, noting that they must be of opposite parity and coprime. A key point is that the GCD can be expressed as gcd(m, n) = gcd(m+n, m-n) = gcd(2x+1, 2y+1), emphasizing the need for y to be chosen such that 2y+1 is coprime to 2x+1. The conversation concludes that while a specific choice of y, such as y = x - 1, guarantees coprimality, identifying all valid y values for a given x requires more complex considerations involving the Euler totient function.
Terry1
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have 2 equations...

m = x + y + 1
n = x - y

where x > y > 0

I have 2 requirements of the above

m and n must be of opposite parity (which they are)
and I also require GCD(m, n) = 1, i.e. coprime.

Is there a way of selecting x and y so this condition is met?

For example, if I let x = 10 then m and n are coprime when y = {2, 5, 6, 8, 9} and not coprime when y = {1, 3, 4, 7}

Thanks for any help you can give.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Condition. Observe that
$$
m + n = 2\,x + 1\,,\qquad m-n=2y+1\,.
$$
Under your hypothesis, I suggest you prove that
$$
\gcd(m,n)=\gcd(m+n,m-n) = \gcd(2x+1,2y+1)\,.
$$
Here the fact that $m+n$ and $m-n$ are odd (well, that at least one of them is odd) will be crucial.

Example. When $x=10$ you have $2x+1=21 = 3\cdot 7$, and so it follows that your conditions hold iff $2y+1$ is not a multiple of $3$ or $7$.

Finding a $y$ once $x$ is fixed. Now, fixed an $x$, how do you choose $y < x$ satisfying the above requirements? Well, try proving that $\gcd(2x-1,2x+1)=1$ and so picking $y = x-1$ is actually enough because $2y+1=2x-1$ in that case.
 
Hi PaulRS,

Thanks for your reply.

I did forget to mention that I am only dealing with integers, but I think that is clear from the post. Maybe I should have put it in the Number Theory sub-forum.

I'm not sure if you understood my question correctly as I'm not putting forward a hypothesis.
Anyway, I'll try to answer the points you have made...

As you have pointed out, m + n = 2x + 1 and m - n = 2y + 1, so I'm not sure I follow your

"Here the fact that m+n and m−n are odd (well, that at least one of them is odd) will be crucial."

since (m + n) and (m - n) are both patently odd."gcd(m, n) = gcd(m+n, m-n)= gcd(2x+1, 2y+1)"
Well the last two, gcd(m+n, m-n)= gcd(2x+1, 2y+1) have the same values in the brackets so the gcd is obviously the same.

gcd(m, n) = gcd(m+n, m-n)
let m = 3a and n = 3b where a and b are coprime, then gcd(m, n) = 3

m+n = 3(a+b) and m-n = 3(a-b) => gcd(m+n, m-n) = 3

Finding a y once x is fixed. Now, fixed an x, how do you choose y<x satisfying the above requirements? Well, try proving that gcd(2x−1,2x+1)=1 and so picking y=x−1 is actually enough because 2y+1=2x−1 in that case.

That is true but what I need are all valid values of y for any given x to satisfy gcd(m, n) = 1

The lines I am thinking along is if I can make a substitution for x and y such that x + y + 1 and x - y will always be coprime without having to test gcd.
Basically the same way that if you require p to be even and q to be odd you can
let p = 2s and q = 2t+1Thanks again
 
Terry said:
gcd(m, n) = gcd(m+n, m-n)
let m = 3a and n = 3b where a and b are coprime, then gcd(m, n) = 3

m+n = 3(a+b) and m-n = 3(a-b) => gcd(m+n, m-n) = 3

I do not know what you mean by that, in fact, you want $m$ and $n$ to be coprime, not be both multiples of $3$.

The proof is rather simple and I am going to spell it out completely so that you see the method to it, let $d$ be the greatest common multiple of $m$ and $n$. Then clearly $d$ divides $m+n$ and $m-n$ (simply factor the $d$ out from both!), thus $d\leq d^\prime$, the greastest common divisor of $m+n$ and $m-n$, since $d$ is a common divisor of these.

Similarly, $d^\prime$ divides both $(m+n)+(m-n)=2\,m$ and $(m+n)-(m-n)=2\,n$, but! since $m+n$ and $m-n$ are odd, then $d^\prime$ is odd, thus $d^\prime | (2\,m)$ means $d^\prime | m$ and similarly $d^\prime |n$. Thus $d^\prime$ is a common divisor of $m$ and $n$ and $d^\prime \leq d$, because $d$ was the greatest common divisor of $m$ and $n$.

What yo conclude from this is that $d = d^\prime$.

Terry said:
That is true but what I need are all valid values of y for any given x to satisfy gcd(m, n) = 1

The lines I am thinking along is if I can make a substitution for x and y such that x + y + 1 and x - y will always be coprime without having to test gcd.
Basically the same way that if you require p to be even and q to be odd you can
let p = 2s and q = 2t+1

Then you are in trouble, because, according to what I showed the condition for $y$ is $\gcd(2x+1,2y+1)=1$, and it is necessary as well as sufficient. Thus your substitution should naturally produce, not one, not two, but all of the odd integers coprime to $2x+1$ that are in the range $\{3,\ldots,2x-1\}$, and I do not think that is possible because the number (meaning 'quantity') of such integers is very irregular (at some point you will have to filter the results).

A little more technical note. If you pick an $x$ you have $$\text{number of solutions }y = \frac{\phi(2x+1)}{2} - 1\,,$$ where $\phi$ is the Euler totient function, since $n\mapsto 2x+1-n$ maps an odd number coprime to $2x+1$ into an even number coprme to $2x+1$ bijectively (and then you have to substract $1$ to take into account that $2\cdot 0 + 1$ is not a valid solution).

Conclusion. With this what I am telling you is that your "substitution for x and y" should naturally take into account the number of integers between $1$ and $2x+1$ that are coprime to $2x+1$ (that is, $\phi(2x+1)$) which I do not expect to happen for $\phi$ is such an irregular function.

I showed you a simple pair $y=x-1$ that always works. If want to have all of them, maybe you will require more assumptions on $x$ and $y$.
 
Last edited:
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K