Does Bezout's theorem work both ways?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Heisenberg7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers Theorem
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Bezout's theorem and its implications regarding integer relationships, particularly focusing on whether the theorem works both ways in the context of coprimality of integers.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the conditions under which Bezout's theorem applies, questioning whether the existence of integers satisfying the equation implies coprimality. They discuss the implications of the theorem in both directions and consider specific cases involving prime numbers.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide affirmations regarding the correctness of the interpretations of Bezout's theorem, while others raise questions about the converse and its validity in specific scenarios. The discussion appears to be productive, with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing examination of the definitions and assumptions related to coprimality and the conditions under which Bezout's theorem holds, particularly in relation to prime numbers and integer combinations.

Heisenberg7
Messages
101
Reaction score
18
Homework Statement
Below
Relevant Equations
Below
Let's assume that for integers ##m## and ##n## (and integers ##x_1## and ##y_1##) the following is satisfied: $$mx_1 + ny_1 = 1$$ Then by this theorem (for some integer ##k##), if ##k|a## and ##k|b## then ##k|mx+ny## for all integers ##x## and ##y##. So it must be, $$k | mx_1 + ny_1$$ for all common factors of ##m## and ##n##. In other words, $$k|1$$ for all common factors of ##m## and ##n##. But this implies that ##k=1## since ##k## is an integer. Thus ##(m, n) = 1##. Since I've never seen this be mentioned before, I'll be happy to see where I went wrong.

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Made a little correction. Numbers ##x_1## and ##y_1## are integers as well.
 
By Bezout's theorem, if ##(m,n)=1## there exists ##x## and ##y## such that

\begin{align*}
mx+ny=1 .
\end{align*}

Are you asking if we can find integers ##x_1## and ##y_1## such that

\begin{align*}
mx_1+ny_1=1
\end{align*}

then is ##(m,n)=1##? In that case, ##(m,n) | mx_1+ny_1 \Rightarrow (m,n) | 1 \Rightarrow (m,n)=1##.
 
Last edited:
julian said:
By Bezout's theorem, if ##(m,n)=1## there exists ##x## and ##y## such that

\begin{align*}
mx+ny=1 .
\end{align*}

Are you asking if we can find integers ##x_1## and ##y_1## such that

\begin{align*}
mx_1+ny_1=1
\end{align*}

then is ##(m,n)=1##? In that case, ##(m,n) | mx_1+ny_1 \Rightarrow (m,n) | 1 \Rightarrow (m,n)=1##.
Yes. That's what I'm asking for. Seems like a useful property for problem solving. So, I am right?
 
It is correct. It follows trivially. As ##(m,n)## divides ##m## and ##n## by definition, and given that we have found ##x_1## and ##x_2## such that ##mx_1+ny_1=1##, we have ##(m,n) | 1##. It may be useful in proving two integers are coprime.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Heisenberg7
Also, in general ##(m,n)=d## implies ##xm+yn=d## for some integers ##x,y##. The converse is not true, though.
 
nuuskur said:
Also, in general ##(m,n)=d## implies ##xm+yn=d## for some integers ##x,y##. The converse is not true, though.
Well, in case of a prime number ##k## for which ##xm + yn = k## for some integers ##x,y,m,n##, shouldn't it be true? I mean, ##(m,n)|xm+yn \implies (m,n)|k \implies (m,n) = 1 \vee (m,n) = k##. So we only need to verify whether ##(m,n)## equals 1 or ##k##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K