Proving Total Order of D(n) Homework

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the total ordering of the set D(n), which consists of all positive divisors of a positive integer n. The original poster explores conditions under which D(n) is totally ordered, particularly focusing on cases where n can be expressed as a sum of powers of 2 and 3.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to identify criteria for when D(n) is totally ordered, noting specific cases and examples. Participants question the validity of certain assumptions and provide counterexamples to refine the discussion.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some suggesting that the unique prime factorization of n is key to determining total order. There is recognition of the need for a unifying criterion, and while some progress has been made, explicit consensus on the criteria is not established.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion is constrained by the need to find a general criterion for total ordering, and there are references to specific examples of n that either meet or challenge the proposed conditions.

Sharps
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let n be a positive integer and let D(n) be the set of all positive integers d such that d divides n. For example, D(10)={1,2,5,10}. It's easily shown that the divides relation (xRy if x divides y) is a partial ordering on D(n), but for what n is the D(n) totally ordered?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I've already verified that for all n, D(n) is a partial ordering. I've also made the observation that, for all n=2^s + 3^t where s,t are natural numbers D(n) is totally ordered. However, I'm having a difficult time proving this. For nonzero s and t, n is prime and D(n) is clearly totally ordered. For the cases where s=0 or t=0, it's more difficult to prove. Any suggestions? Is this the right way to go about this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For nonzero s and t, n is prime
Really?

For the cases where s=0 or t=0
You've already written a counterexample in this thread. :smile:
 
That's my mistake...typo. I meant to say that all prime numbers can be written as a 2^s + 3^t. Also, I've found a counterexample to that criterion, namely 125. So it's back to the drawing board.

What I know:

1.) For all n such that n is prime, D(n) is totally ordered.
2.) Not much else. I've written D(n) up to n=32, and found that the following non-prime n also give totally ordered sets:

4, 8, 9, 16, 25, 27, 32

but have no idea how to find some unifying criteria now.

Arrgh! I understand that once I find a criteria, I must show that for all a,b in D(n) a/b or b/a, but I need to find that criteria first.
 
Well, this is all about divisibility, right? We know a lot about divisibility -- the fundamental theorem of arithmetic being the most important structural fact.
 
Yah, I was thinking about that. I know that all natural numbers greater than one have a unique prime factorization. So, I suppose that if D(n) contains 2 primes, they will not divide one another. Can I go from there?
 
I got it.

Any n with unique prime factorization containing only one prime factor (not counting its multiplicities) will be totally ordered.

Nice.
 
Sharps said:
I got it.

Any n with unique prime factorization containing only one prime factor (not counting its multiplicities) will be totally ordered.

Nice.

Yep, that sounds right! And all of your examples are, in fact, prime powers!
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K