# Proof Check: Prove a | 1 iff a = ±1

• SithsNGiggles
In summary, "a | 1" in the proof means "a divides 1" and "iff" stands for "if and only if". It is necessary to prove both directions in the statement to show that they are equivalent. The proof uses the definition of divisibility, setting k = 1 or k = -1, and can be generalized to any number c where c = ±1.
SithsNGiggles
Hi, can I get someone to look over this proof? I'm okay with the first part, but can I get some reassurance or feedback on the second part? Namely, am I right about what I'm intending to show? Thanks.

## Homework Statement

The following statement holds for all $a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{Z}:$
$a | 1\mbox{ iff } a=\pm 1$

Write a proof for this part of Theorem 2.3.6 (which just lists other properties I've written proofs for).

## The Attempt at a Solution

First I wrote a proof for the left-to-right conditional:
Assume $a|1$. Then, by definition, $\exists k\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $ak = 1$.

Suppose $k>1$. Then $ak = 1 \Rightarrow a = \frac{1}{k} \not\in\mathbb{Z}$.
Suppose $k=1$. Then $ak = 1 \Rightarrow a = 1$.
Suppose $-1 < k < 1$. Then $k = 0$, but $0a \not=1$ for any $a$.
Suppose $k=-1$. Then $ak = 1 \Rightarrow a = -1$.
Suppose $k<-1$. Then $ak = 1 \Rightarrow a = -\frac{1}{k} \not\in\mathbb{Z}$.

The first, third, and fifth scenarios all lead to contradictions. In the remaining cases, $a=\pm1$.

(I had a feeling my approach here was a bit tedious, but if it's acceptable, I'm fine with it.)

Right-to-left:
Assume $a=\pm1$. To show that $a|1$, suppose that $ak=1$ for some $k$. If $k \in\mathbb{Z}$, then both $k|1$ and $a|1$, the latter of which I want to show.

Case 1: Let $a=1$. Then we have $(1)k = 1 \Rightarrow k = 1 \in\mathbb{Z}$.
Case 2: Let $a=-1$. Then we have $(-1)k = 1 \Rightarrow k=-1 \in\mathbb{Z}$.

Since both cases imply that $k \in\mathbb{Z}$, I conclude that $a|1$.

SithsNGiggles said:
(I had a feeling my approach here was a bit tedious, but if it's acceptable, I'm fine with it.)
You could reduce this to the cases k=0, |k|=1, |k|>1, but I think the idea is fine.

You can prove "<=" like that, but you can simply give some specific k, you don't have to derive that there is no other value.

You use the fact that ##k\not\in\{1,-1\}\Rightarrow \frac{1}{k}\not\in\mathbb{Z}##, when that is essentially what you're trying to prove for ##a##. Actually that's the contrapositive of what you're trying to prove; ##\frac{1}{a}\in\mathbb{Z}\Rightarrow a\in\{1,-1\}##. So that's bad.

Actually, you're working in ##\mathbb{Z}##, so what does ##\frac{1}{k}## even mean? If you are learning this stuff the way that I learned it, all of the statements about division for integers have been expressed in terms of multiplication. So it's probably a good idea to restrict yourself to using only facts about multiplication. It's OK to use what you know from other classes to gain insight into the problem or figure out how the solutions should go, but that doesn't mean you're free to use that information in the proof.

For instance, you know that the rational reciprocals of integers larger than 1 must be between 0 and 1. How do you go about saying that without referencing rationals or reciprocals? Can you get away with saying something slightly different (perhaps like ##nm>m## if ##n,m>1##*) that only uses facts about integers and integer multiplication? That's the problem that you're being asked to do here.

*You should be able to prove this from the definitions of multiplication for natural numbers and the definition of < for natural numbers if you've seen these definitions.

You can use multiplication and division in the real numbers, and see that the solutions are not integers afterwards. As operations with integers give the same result as operations with the corresponding real numbers, this works.

## What is the meaning of "a | 1" in the proof?

In this proof, "a | 1" means "a divides 1". In other words, 1 is a multiple of a.

## What does "iff" stand for in the statement?

"iff" stands for "if and only if". It is a logical connective used to indicate that both statements have the same truth value. In this proof, it means that if a divides 1, then a must equal ±1, and if a equals ±1, then a divides 1.

## Why is it necessary to prove both directions in the statement?

In order to prove that two statements are equivalent, it is necessary to prove both directions. If we only proved one direction (a divides 1 implies a = ±1), we would not have proven that the other direction (a = ±1 implies a divides 1) is also true.

## How does the proof use the definition of divisibility?

The proof uses the definition of divisibility, which states that a number a divides a number b if there exists an integer k such that b = ka. In this case, b = 1, and we must show that a = ±1. This is achieved by setting k = 1 for a = 1 and k = -1 for a = -1.

## Can this proof be generalized to other numbers besides 1 and ±1?

Yes, this proof can be generalized to any number c where c = ±1. The proof would follow the same logic, using the definition of divisibility and setting k = 1 or k = -1 depending on the value of c.

Replies
2
Views
703
Replies
1
Views
853
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
893
Replies
3
Views
951
Replies
6
Views
739
Replies
3
Views
955
Replies
5
Views
736
Replies
6
Views
780