How to tell if something has a common factor

  • Thread starter Thread starter rsala004
  • Start date Start date
rsala004
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
if we have 6 and 9

and we break them down to sets of prime factors {2,3} , and {3}

if the intersection of the 2 sets is empty..does this mean that numbers have no common factors?

or in more specific to my interest...

if we have P and Q and we have their sets of prime factors, if the intersection is empty does this mean P/Q is an irreducible fraction?

or is this only true for their sets of non-zero prime+composite factors?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rsala004 said:
if we have 6 and 9

and we break them down to sets of prime factors {2,3} , and {3}

if the intersection of the 2 sets is empty..does this mean that numbers have no common factors?

or in more specific to my interest...

if we have P and Q and we have their sets of prime factors, if the intersection is empty does this mean P/Q is an irreducible fraction?

or is this only true for their sets of non-zero prime+composite factors?

thanks
Your main question has yes as an answer.

I don't know what you mean by
this only true for their sets of non-zero prime+composite factors
 
rsala004 said:
if we have P and Q and we have their sets of prime factors, if the intersection is empty does this mean P/Q is an irreducible fraction?

or is this only true for their sets of non-zero prime+composite factors?

thanks


By definition, a set of prime factors won't contain any composites.
 
I'm going to guess the question and then answer what I thought the question was.

Question: Given positive integers m and n, if the set M of primes dividing m and the set N of primes dividing n are disjoint (have an empty intersection), is m/n an irreducible fraction? [If this is false, is it at least the case that if the set M' of divisors of m and the set N' of divisors of n have {1} as their intersection, is m/n an irreducible fraction?]

Answer: Yes, if there are no primes in common than m/n is irreducible.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top