Relationship among LCM, GCD, and coprimes

  • Thread starter Thread starter andresc889
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gcd Relationship
andresc889
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody,

I am having an extremely hard time understanding a specific relationship that originates from the least common multiple of two or more numbers.

According to "Number Theory and Its History" by Oystein Ore, it is not difficult to see that when one writes

lcm(a,b,c) = p*a = q*b = r*c

Then

gcd(p,q,r) = 1

Meaning that p, q, and r are relatively prime (coprimes).

I have verified this property with several examples. However, I feel somewhat stupid because I cannot see why this is true, and Ore is saying "it is not difficult to see."

According to Wikipedia,

"(...) if a and b are two rationals (or integers), there are integers m and n such that LCM(a, b) = m × a = n × b. This implies that m and n are coprime; otherwise they could be divided by their common divisor, giving a common multiple less that the least common multiple, which is absurd."

I am not able to see how this argument works. Can anybody help me understand how this property is proven?

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Basically, it's saying that if m and n have a common divisor d>1, then (m/d)*a = (n/d)*b is also a common multiple of a and b. But (m/d)*a < m*a = LCM (a, b), so this is impossible. The same trick works with the three-variable version.
 
Thank you Citan. It finally makes sense!
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top