MHB How Do You Prove That sa + tb Divides gcd(a, b) in Bezout's Lemma?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nicodemus1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To prove Bezout's Lemma, it's established that gcd(a, b) divides both a and b, leading to the conclusion that gcd(a, b) also divides sa + tb. The discussion emphasizes that since sa + tb is a common divisor of a and b, it cannot exceed the greatest common divisor, d. The definition of gcd(a, b) asserts that any common divisor must divide the gcd itself. Therefore, since sa + tb divides both a and b, it follows that sa + tb must also divide gcd(a, b). The key takeaway is that any common divisor of a and b, including sa + tb, is inherently a divisor of their gcd.
nicodemus1
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Good Day,

I have to prove Bezout's Lemma.

I have proven that since gcd (a, b) divides a and gcd (a, b) divides b, gcd (a, b) divides sa + tb.

I've made use of the well-ordering principle and Euclid's Algorithm to show that sa + tb divides a and sa + tb divides b.

What I can't prove is that sa + tb divides gcd (a, b).

Please help me here.

Thank you.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
nicodemus said:
Good Day,

I have to prove Bezout's Lemma.

I have proven that since gcd (a, b) divides a and gcd (a, b) divides b, gcd (a, b) divides sa + tb.

I've made use of the well-ordering principle and Euclid's Algorithm to show that sa + tb divides a and sa + tb divides b.

What I can't prove is that sa + tb divides gcd (a, b).

Please help me here.

Thank you.

since d = gcd(a,b) is the largest positive integer that divides both a and b,

and d divides sa + tb, d ≤ sa + tb, whence sa + tb = d, since sa + tb divides both a and b.
 
Good Day,

Thank you for your reply.

However, I still don't get why sa + tb divides gcd(a, b).

Thanks & Regards,
Nicodemus
 
the "g" in gcd stands for "greatest". the "cd" stands for "common divisor".

since sa + tb is a common divisor of a and b, it cannot be "greater than" the greatest common divisor of a and b, can it?

EVERY number divides it self.

specifically, the DEFINTION of gcd(a,b) is:

d: d|a and d|b and (for all c: if c|a and c|b then c|d).

we have shown that c = sa + tb divides both a and b. therefore c|d.

do you have a different definition of gcd(a,b)?
 
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...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
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