Prove that {x∈ℤ : 2|x} ∩ {x∈ℤ : 9|x} ⊂ {x∈ℤ : 6|x}

  • Thread starter Thread starter lep11
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving that the intersection of two sets of integers, those divisible by 2 and those divisible by 9, is a subset of the set of integers divisible by 6. The discussion centers around the implications of divisibility and the relationships between these integers.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the reasoning behind why an integer divisible by both 2 and 9 must also be divisible by 6. There are attempts to clarify the implications of prime factorization and the uniqueness of prime factors in relation to the problem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and questioning each other's reasoning. Some participants suggest that the original proof is correct but requires further justification, while others express confusion about the implications of divisibility and the relationships between the integers involved.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of potential misunderstandings regarding the use of symbols and the definitions of divisibility. Participants are also considering the implications of prime numbers in the context of the proof.

lep11
Messages
380
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement


Prove that {x∈ℤ : 2|x} ∩ {x∈ℤ : 9|x} ⊂ {x∈ℤ : 6|x}.
It means that the intersection of the two sets is subset of the set containing integers that are divisible by 6.

The Attempt at a Solution


Basically I need to show that if an integer is divisible by 2 and 9, then it's also divisible by 6.
Proof:
let. x=2*9*n=18*n=(6*3*n)∈{x∈ℤ : 6|x} (n∈ℤ)

Q.E.D.

However, I don't think it's that simple.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
lep11 said:

Homework Statement


Prove that {x∈ℤ : 2|x} ∩ {x∈ℤ : 9|x} ⊂ {x∈ℤ : 6|x}.
It means that the intersection of the two sets is subset of the set containing integers that are divisible by 6.

The Attempt at a Solution


Basically I need to show that if an integer is divisible by 2 and 9, then it's also divisible by 6.
Proof:
let. x=2*9*n=18*n=(6*3*n)∈{x∈ℤ : 6|x} (n∈ℤ)

Q.E.D.

However, I don't think it's that simple.
You think wrong: it is correct. :oldsmile:
 
Ok, thanks :oldsmile:
 
Samy_A said:
You think wrong: it is correct. :oldsmile:

Actually, it's correct but needs some justification. Suppose I said x is divisible by 2 and 6. You would be wrong to say that x=2*6*n and conclude that's it's divisible by 12. You need to say something about prime numbers.
 
Dick said:
Actually, it's correct but needs some justification. Suppose I said x is divisible by 2 and 6. You would be wrong to say that x=2*6*n and conclude that's it's divisible by 12. You need to say something about prime numbers.
Let's summarize the proof.

I have already shown that if x is even, then the statement is true.

If x is a prime, additive inverse of a prime or ±1, then {x∈ℤ : 2|x} ∩ {x∈ℤ : 9|x} = the empty set. And the empty set is a subset of every set. In addition, all primes are odd.

Therefore {x∈ℤ : 2|x} ∩ {x∈ℤ : 9|x} ⊂ {x∈ℤ : 6|x} holds for all x∈ℤ.
 
Last edited:
lep11 said:
Let's summarize the proof.

I have already shown that if x is even, then the statement is true.

If x is a prime, additive inverse of a prime or ±1, then {x∈ℤ : 2|x} ∩ {x∈ℤ : 9|x} = the empty set. And the empty set is a subset of every set. In addition, all primes are odd.

Therefore {x∈ℤ : 2|x} ∩ {x∈ℤ : 9|x} ⊂ {x∈ℤ : 6|x} holds for all x∈ℤ.
I'm a little lost here. The statement "If x is a prime, additive inverse of a prime or ±1, then {x∈ℤ : 2|x} ∩ {x∈ℤ : 9|x} = the empty set" is meaningless, or overuses the symbol "x".

What Dick meant was (I think) that you should explain more in detail why you can write x=2*9*n in your original proof. He gave as an example that this would not work for 2 and 6.
 
Samy_A said:
I'm a little lost here. The statement "If x is a prime, additive inverse of a prime or ±1, then {x∈ℤ : 2|x} ∩ {x∈ℤ : 9|x} = the empty set" is meaningless, or overuses the symbol "x".

What Dick meant was (I think) that you should explain more in detail why you can write x=2*9*n in your original proof. He gave as an example that this would not work for 2 and 6.

Right, that's what I meant. x being prime isn't an issue, it's something about 2 and 3 being prime.
 
Is it about prime factors? 2*3*3*n? How should I modify the original proof?
 
lep11 said:
Is it about prime factors? 2*3*3*n? How should I modify the original proof?
Not by much, as both Dick and myself said it is correct.
What you haven't explicitly explained is the following:
Take x ∈{y∈ℤ : 2|y} ∩ {y∈ℤ : 9|y}.
That says that x=2*a and x=9*b, where a and b are integers.
How do you conclude from this that x=2*9*n (n an integer)? We saw that for the pair 2,6 that doesn't work.
 
  • #10
Isn't that obvious? I still don't get it.

x=2*a and x=9*b
So a=9 and b=2, because x is an integer.
 
  • #11
lep11 said:
Isn't that obvious? I still don't get it,
It is rather obvious, but the point was that you didn't state why.

Let's assume I don't get it: I don't see why x=2*a and x=9*b implies x=2*9*n (a, b, n integers). How would you explain it to me?

lep11 said:
x=2*a and x=9*b
So a=9 and b=2, because x is an integer.
This is not correct.
 
  • #12
If x is divisible by 2 and 9, then x must be product of at least 2 and 9.
 
  • #13
lep11 said:
If x is divisible by 2 and 9, then x must be product of at least 2 and 9.
Why?
Just start from x=2*a=3*b (a,b integers).
EDIT: sorry, that whas a typo, as above it should have ben x=2*a=3*3*b
 
Last edited:
  • #14
x=2*a=3*b
a=3b/2
 
  • #15
Let's try this: we have as before x=2*a=9*b.

Do you think that b can be an odd integer? And why?
 
  • #16
Samy_A said:
Let's try this: we have as before x=2*a=9*b.

Do you think that b can be an odd integer? And why?

The basic theorem you want to apply here is called "unique prime factorization". Samy A suggests an alternative trick way to do it. But I think you should work with the theorem. Unless you don't know it, in which case the trick is good.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Dick said:
The basic theorem you want to apply here is called "unique prime factorization". Samy A suggests an alternative trick way to do it. But I think you should work with the theorem. Unless you don't know it, in which case the trick is good.
I agree, and I assume he knows the theorem. But it looks as if he sees the theorem as so obvious that he doesn't actually states it.
 
  • #18
let x=2*3*3*n=6*3n?
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K