Proof About Greatest Common Divisors

  • Thread starter Thread starter daneault23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on disproving the assertion that distinct positive integers a and b exist such that for all natural numbers n, either (a,n)=1 or (b,n)=1. The participants analyze the implications of prime divisors of a and b, concluding that the assertion holds true only when either a or b equals 1. A counterexample is constructed using a=2 and b=5, demonstrating that for any integers greater than 1, there exists a natural number n that shares a greatest common divisor with both a and b, thus invalidating the original assertion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of greatest common divisors (GCD)
  • Familiarity with prime numbers and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of number theory concepts
  • Ability to analyze mathematical proofs and counterexamples
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of greatest common divisors in number theory
  • Learn about prime factorization and its implications for GCD
  • Explore mathematical proof techniques, particularly contradiction
  • Investigate the role of specific integer pairs in GCD calculations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in number theory, particularly those studying properties of integers and greatest common divisors.

daneault23
Messages
32
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Disprove the following assertion: "There exist distinct positive integers a and b such that for all natural numbers n we have (a,n)=1 or (b,n)=1."


Homework Equations


(a,n)=1 and (b,n)=1 means greatest common divisor of a and n is 1, and of b and n is 1, respectively.


The Attempt at a Solution



This was my attempt at a solution. My teacher said it was wrong. Not really sure why.

Suppose there exists such a and b that are natural numbers where a isn't equal to b, a and b aren't equal to 1, where for all n that are natural numbers we have (a,n)=1 or (b,n)=1. Since a isn't equal to 1, we have that there's a prime divisor of a, i.e. p1=P. Since b isn't equal to 1, we have that there's a prime divisor of b, i.e. p2=P. Take n=p1*p2. Then p1 divides (a,n) where (a,n)>1, and p2 divides (b,n) where (b,n)>1 which is a contradiction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
daneault23 said:
Suppose there exists such a and b that are natural numbers where a isn't equal to b, a and b aren't equal to 1, where for all n that are natural numbers we have (a,n)=1 or (b,n)=1. Since a isn't equal to 1, we have that there's a prime divisor of a, i.e. p1=P.
If there is a prime divisor p1 of a, then wouldn't (a, p1) = p1?
 
Have you considered the cases n= a and n= b?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Have you considered the cases n= a and n= b?

In those cases then (a,n) and b,n)=n wouldn' they? In our book it gives a hint that says "try finding the smallest such counterexample when a=2 and b=5. How does this suggest that we construct a counterexample in general?"

If a=2 and b=5, then (a,n)=1 if and only if n was an odd number (aka not a multiple of 2). If b=5, (b,n)=1 if and only if n wasn't divisible by 5. I'm just confused. I don't see how the hint helps me.
 
Aha I somewhat got it. Not sure how to actually prove it though. The assertion only works for a=b=1 because any number larger than 1 has a natural number associated with it which share a greatest common divisor. For example, let a=10. Then n could be 10 also and then (a,n,)=10
 
daneault23 said:
Aha I somewhat got it. Not sure how to actually prove it though. The assertion only works for a=b=1 because any number larger than 1 has a natural number associated with it which share a greatest common divisor. For example, let a=10. Then n could be 10 also and then (a,n,)=10

What is (b,n) when n = 10?
 
Nevermind guys I got it. The assertion is actually true when either a or b (not both) equals 1. The book tricked me by saying disprove the assertion when is reality the assertion is really true.

let's say a=1 then (a,n)=1 and it doesn't matter what positive integer b is (as long as its not 1), then the assertion holds.
 
Hmm, perhaps the question should have been,

Disprove: There exist integers 1 <= a < b such that, for every natural number n, (a,n) = 1 or (b,n) = 1.

But, daneault23, you answered the question as posed so good job.
 
verty said:
Hmm, perhaps the question should have been,

Disprove: There exist integers 1 <= a < b such that, for every natural number n, (a,n) = 1 or (b,n) = 1.

But, daneault23, you answered the question as posed so good job.

Tricky books these days lol
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K