Proving that d=gcd(a,b) iff 1=gcd(a1,b1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathrocks
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that d equals gcd(a, b) if and only if 1 equals gcd(a1, b1), where a and b are integers expressed as a = a1*d and b = b1*d. The initial proof attempts to establish that since d divides both a and b, it must also divide their gcd. The conversation reveals confusion around manipulating gcd properties and finding a clear path to show that if gcd(a1, b1) equals 1, then d must equal gcd(a, b). Participants express difficulty in connecting the steps and applying known theorems effectively, indicating a need for clarification on gcd relationships and proof structure. Overall, the thread highlights common challenges in understanding and proving properties of gcd in integer arithmetic.
mathrocks
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble with gcd proofs in general, but here is a specific problem.

Let a and b be integers, not both zero, and let d be a positive integer that divides both a and b. Then there exists a1 and b1 such that a=a1*d and b=b1*d.
Prove that d=gcd(a,b) if and only if 1=gcd(a1,b1)

What I have so far:

Pf: Let a and b be integers and since d|a and d|b then d|gcd(a,b) by definition. So let d*k=gcd(a,b) for some integer k. Then dk=ma+nb where m,n are integers. (I'm not sure if I can do that last statement). Now dk=m(a1*d)+n(b1*d) where a=a1*d and b=b1*d. So dk=d(m*a1+n*b1) and therefore d|(m*a1+n*b1) ...

I'm not sure if I'm heading in the right direction, but after that point I don't know how to get to 1=gcd(a1,b1).

For the second part of the proof I have"

Now assume a and b are integers such that 1=gcd(a1,b1). So there exists m and n that are integers such that 1=ma1+nb1. (Now I multiple by a integer d). Then d=md*a1 + nd*b1, and d=ma+nb where a1*d=a and b1*d=b.

Again, I'm stuck after this point.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you're making it far too complicated.

Let's do this way: suppose that gcd(a1,b1)=e and e is different from 1. Then a1=ea2 and b1=eb2 for some integers a2 and b2, then a=a2ed, and b=b2ed.

So, if d is the gcd, then e cannot be different from 1 as claimed, or de divides both a and b.

For the second part, if ass ume gcd(a1,b1)=1 we can indeed conclude that d=am+bn, but this tells us that gcd(m,n) divides d, since the gcd divides the terms on the right. So d is less than gcd(a,b) since it is some divisor of a and b, and is also divisible by the gcd so it must equal the gcd.
 
This was mathrocks' question: a,b \in Z a,b \neq 0, and d=gcd(a,b). If a=da_1 and b=db_1 for some a_1, b_1 \in Z then you want to show that gcd(a_1,b_1) = 1.

I can't follow matt grime's proof but I know that there is a theorem which states:

Let d=gcd(a,b). Then there exists integers x and y such that d=ax+by.

I want to know how we can prove the problem above using this theorem.

d=gcd(a,b)

d=ax + by and since a=da_1 and b=db_1,

d=(da_1)x + (db_1)y = (dx)a_1 + (dy)b_1

I'm stuck at this point. Can anyone help please?
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K