- #1

- 79

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter jim1174
- Start date

In summary, when looking for a number that can divide evenly into two given numbers, there are some methods that can make the process easier. These include checking if the numbers are even, divisible by 5 or the sum of their digits is divisible by 3. This process is also known as the Euclidean algorithm. It is important to note that for fractions, there is no greatest common denominator, but rather a least common denominator.

- #1

- 79

- 0

Mathematics news on Phys.org

- #2

Mentor

- 14,575

- 8,774

Are you thinking of the greatest common denominator?

- #3

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,810

- 1,669

There are some rules which can lessen the amount of work involved:jim1174 said:

1. Even numbers are all evenly divisible by 2.

2. Numbers ending in 0 or 5 are also divisible by 5 or multiples of 5.

3. If the sum of the digits in a number can be divided evenly by 3, then the original number can also be divided by 3. For example, if n = 522, then 5 + 2 + 2 = 9, which is divisible by 3 evenly; therefore 522 is also evenly divisible by 3. (522/3 = 174)

- #4

Homework Helper

- 2,461

- 158

- #5

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 43,008

- 974

Since there are no fractions involved here, you must mean "greatest common divisor". In fact there is no "greatest common denominator" for a set of fractions- there is the "jedishrfu said:Are you thinking of the greatest common denominator?

- #6

Mentor

- 14,575

- 8,774

HallsofIvy said:Since there are no fractions involved here, you must mean "greatest common divisor". In fact there is no "greatest common denominator" for a set of fractions- there is the "leastcommon denominator" which is a number into which all the denominators will divide.

Yes, you are right. I was thinking GCD and my memory brought up the wrong term. Thanks for the correction. I should have added a reference and then I would have caught my mistake.

Share:

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 675

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 990

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 653

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 445

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 649

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K