I How to evaluate the Greatest Common Divisor?

AI Thread Summary
Euclid's algorithm is preferred over prime decomposition for finding the greatest common divisor (gcd) of two numbers due to its efficiency, especially with large numbers. Prime decomposition is complex and relies on the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, while Euclid's algorithm utilizes properties from ring theory, making it fundamentally different. For example, simple numbers can be quickly factored, but large composites are impractical to decompose. Additionally, a generalized version of Euclid's algorithm can be applied to polynomials, and a variant can find the multiplicative inverse of integers modulo another number. Overall, Euclid's algorithm is a more efficient and versatile method for evaluating the gcd.
matqkks
Messages
280
Reaction score
5
What are the advantages of using Euclid's algorithm over prime decomposition to find the gcd of two numbers?
Should you use Euclid’s algorithm in some cases and prime decomposition in others?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Prime decomposition is hard for large numbers, the Euclidean algorithm is not. It is also fundamentally a different approach: prime decomposition has to use the fundamental theorem of arithmetics, the Euclidean algorithm is ring theory: ##n\mathbb{Z} + m\mathbb{Z} = (n,m)\mathbb{Z}## where only the property of a principal ideal domain is used. This might be the same, but the point of view is another.
 
  • Like
Likes matqkks
If the prime factorization is ##2\times2\times2\times2\times2\times2\times2\times2\times3\times3\times3## then you can discover in a matter of seconds via only paper and pencil or maybe in your head that that's what it is. If it's ##13679\times18269## then you probably cannot. But Euclid's algorithm is very efficient.

One can also use a somewhat generalized version of Euclid's algorithm to find the gcd of two polynomials in one variable.

Another variant (involving only positive integers, not polynomials) involves not only the successive remainders but also the quotients. In that version one can find the multiplicative inverse of an integer modulo a number with which it has no prime factors in common. For example, by what must one multiply ##322## in order to get ##1##, modulo ##701##? (The answer in this example is ##455##.)
 
  • Like
Likes matqkks
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