MHB Properties of gcd's and relatively prime integers

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that if gcd(a, b) = 1 and c divides ab, then there exist integers r and s such that c = rs, with r dividing a, s dividing b, and gcd(r, s) = 1. The initial approach involves using the properties of gcd and linear combinations, but the poster finds it challenging to progress. Eventually, a solution is proposed where r and s are defined as gcd(a, c) and gcd(b, c) respectively, leading to the conclusion that since gcd(r, s) must equal 1, it follows that c = rs. The final argument confirms that both r and s divide c, solidifying the proof.
Kiwi1
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
I am studying this in the context of group/ring theory, ideals etc. So I post it here and not in the number theory section.

6. Suppose gcd(a,b)=1 and c|ab. Prove That there exist integers r and s such that c=rs, r|a, s|b and gcd (r,s)=1.

One of my attempts:
From gcd(a,b)=1 there exist s',t' such that ar'+bs'=1 and from this:

gcd(a,b)=1
gcd(a,s')=1
gcd(r',b)=1
gcd(a,s')=1

I have the result: if gcd(a,c)=1 and gcd(b,c)=1 then gcd(ab,c)=1. I can use this to show:

gcd(ar',s')=1
gcd(bs',r')=1
gcd(bs',a)=1
gcd(ar',b)=1

This does not seem to be getting me far. I was hoping to show that c=r's'k for some k. and that r'k|a, s'k|b.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
what is the ring ? is it $\mathbb{Z}$ integers ?
 
Yes the ring is the integers.

For most of the problems so far I haven't needed to use anything more complicated than my Theorem 3 which says that the gcd of a and b can be expressed as a linear combination of a and b.

Some more thoughts. Actually I think I have solved it?

Let r = gcd(a,c) and s = gcd(b,c) then r|a, s|b, r|ab, s|ab and rs|ab

and there exist u,v,w,x: (ua+vc)*(wb+xc)=rs=uwab+uxac+vwbc+vxcc=u'ab+v'c for u'=uw, v'=uxa+vwb+vxc
or
rs=u'ab+v'c. Now since c|ab and c|c we conclude c|rs.

Let gcd(r,s)=k. r|a, s|b so their exist m,n,o,p: r=mk, s=nk, a=ro, b=ps. Therefore: a=mko and b=pnk so k divides both a and b.
Since gcd(a,b)=1 K|1 and it must be that k=1. i.e. gcd(r,s)=1.

Now r|c, s|c, gcd(r,s)=1 so using a previous result (question C3) rs|c.

Since rs|c and c|rs we get c=rs.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
829
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
504
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
14K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
13K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K