Rational numbers and Lowest terms proof:

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving properties of rational numbers in lowest terms, specifically focusing on the equality of fractions and the conditions under which a fraction can equal an integer. The subject area includes abstract algebra and number theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore proof techniques, including contradiction and prime factorization, to establish relationships between integers and their fractions in lowest terms. Questions arise about the adequacy of certain approaches and the need for detailed reasoning.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide guidance and suggest methods for approaching the proofs, while others express uncertainty about their reasoning and seek further clarification. Multiple interpretations of the problems are being explored, with no explicit consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of the greatest common divisor (gcd) being 1 for the integers involved and the constraints of the problem setup, including the requirement that integers be greater than or equal to 1.

silvermane
Gold Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
I've been recently reading a book on abstract algebra and number theory, and I stumbled upon a problem that at first glance looked obvious, but I can't seem to figure out how to formally write the proof.

1.)So, let's say we have 4 integers, r,s,t,u, all greater than or equal to 1. Suppose \frac{r}{s} = \frac{t}{u} where both fractions are in lowest terms. Prove that r=t and s=u.

For this problem, I was thinking of solving it via contradiction but I can't seem to get there. I was thinking of using the fact that the gcd(r,s) = 1, and if the gcd(t,u)=1 that there would be a contradiction if they were not equal, but I feel like that's not enough. Any tips or hints would be greatly appreciated.

2.) Now, suppose we have r and s again (lowest terms), and we look at \frac{r}{s}. Prove that an integer N cannot equal \frac{r}{s} unless s = 1.

I was thinking of saying that we can write r as a product of primes:
r=p_{1}*p_{2}*...*p_{k}​

and then writing s as a product of primes, but primes that are all different from r's:
s=q_{1}*q_{2}*...*q_{k}​

Obviously through some algebraic manipulation, we see that \frac{r}{s} is also in lowest terms, and thus can't be an integer unless s=1, but I feel like I need more detail in this part of my proof.

Once again, thank you all in advance for your help and advice :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're on the right track.

Let r = p_1 * p_2 * ... * p_a.

Let s = q_1 * q_2 * ... * q_b.

Let t = p'_1 * p'_2 * ... * p'_c.

Let u = q'_1 * q'_2 * ... * q'_d.

Cross multiply to get

(p_1 * p_2 * ... * p_k)(q'_1 * q'_2 * ... * q'_k) = (p'_1 * p'_2 * ... * p'_k)(q_1 * q_2 * ... * q_k) .

We know that p_i \neq q_k and p'_i \neq q'_k \ for all i and k.

Can you figure out the rest?
 
Raskolnikov said:
You're on the right track.

Let r = p_1 * p_2 * ... * p_a.

Let s = q_1 * q_2 * ... * q_b.

Let t = p'_1 * p'_2 * ... * p'_c.

Let u = q'_1 * q'_2 * ... * q'_d.

Cross multiply to get

(p_1 * p_2 * ... * p_k)(q'_1 * q'_2 * ... * q'_k) = (p'_1 * p'_2 * ... * p'_k)(q_1 * q_2 * ... * q_k) .

We know that p_i \neq q_k and p'_i \neq q'_k \ for all i and k.

Can you figure out the rest?


Yes, very much so! You've been more than helpful. I thought of doing it that way, but must have been distracted somehow. Thank you for all your help! :)
 
For the second one is it not enough to prove by contradiction?

Like suppose \frac{r}{s}=N then s divides r which leads to a contradiction ,unless s=1, given our choice of s and r namely gcd(r,s)=1.

Is this what you are doing ?
 
╔(σ_σ)╝ said:
For the second one is it not enough to prove by contradiction?

Like suppose \frac{r}{s}=N then s divides r which leads to a contradiction ,unless s=1, given our choice of s and r namely gcd(r,s)=1.

Is this what you are doing ?

Yes that's exactly what I've done. I just needed to know that I had to break them all into a product of irreducible primes to better understand what was going on. Thank you for your help :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K