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
AI Thread 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:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
Back
Top