Prove That GCD(a,b) = 1 Implies LCM(a,b) = ab

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Yoss
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Suggestion
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if GCD(a, b) = 1, then LCM(a, b) = ab for natural numbers a and b. Participants explore the relationship between the least common multiple (LCM) and the greatest common divisor (GCD), utilizing Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. Key insights include the derivation of inequalities involving LCM and the necessity of demonstrating that a = k, where k is a natural number related to LCM(a, b). The conversation highlights the importance of understanding these foundational number theory concepts to complete the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of GCD and LCM definitions and properties
  • Familiarity with Euclid's Lemma
  • Knowledge of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
  • Basic number theory concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of GCD and LCM in detail
  • Learn how to apply Euclid's Lemma in proofs
  • Explore the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic and its implications
  • Practice proving relationships between GCD and LCM with examples
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of number theory, and anyone interested in understanding the relationships between GCD and LCM in mathematical proofs.

Yoss
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Let a and b be natural numbers and LCM(a,b) = m.
Prove that if GCD(a,b) = 1, then LCM(a,b) = ab.

What I got so far was that since b|LCM(a,b), then b*k = LCM(a,b) for some natural number k. I know I need to show that k </= a and k >/= a so I get a = k. And show that b*k = ba = LCM(a,b).

I can get a </= k:

Since LCM(a,b) = m, then a|m and b|m. Since LCM(a,b) = m = b*k, then a|bk. <And by the Euclid's Lemma, if a|bc and GCD(a,b) = 1, then a|c>. So
a|k. So a*j = k for some natural number j, and therefore a </= k.

I'm sure I have to derive that a >/= k by the antecedent. I'm trying to use the property that GCD(a,b) = 1 = a*x + b*y for some integers x and y by showing that k|a. But I'm stuck.

Any suggestions? Thanks

Edit: Maybe I should have posted this in Number Theory. Mod, can you move it if you think it should be there?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There's a nice proof using the fundamental theorem of algebra.
 
NateTG said:
There's a nice proof using the fundamental theorem of algebra.

I'm sorry NateTG, I don't follow. Can you please elaborate?
 
I think you might mean Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.
 
Yoss said:
I think you might mean Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.
Yep. Sorry. Apparently I need to sleep more.
 
Am I even on the right track? It feels like I'm missing some trivial property that I need to solve this. Can anyone suggest something, and perhaps how to apply the FTA to this? Thanks.
 
Yeah, I think you're almost there.
You're trying to prove that a \geq k, right?
You might want to use the fact that LCM(a,b) \leq ab since ab is obviously a common multiple.
 
Also, the more general result :(a,b)*((a,b)) = ab where () is GCD, (( )) is LCM follows directly from

(a,b) = \prod_i p_i^{min(k_i,l_i)} ~~ and

((a,b)) = \prod_i p_i^{max(k_i,l_i)}~~ where

a = \prod_i p_i^{k_i} ~~ and

b = \prod_i p_i^{l_i}
 
Last edited:
NateTG said:
Yeah, I think you're almost there.
You're trying to prove that a \geq k, right?
You might want to use the fact that LCM(a,b) \leq ab since ab is obviously a common multiple.

I knew it was something trivial I didn't see. Thanks NateG and Goku.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K