Why aren't there coprime integers?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether there exist coprime integers \(a\) and \(b\) greater than 1 such that \(a^2 b^3 = 8100\). Participants explore various approaches to factorization and the implications of prime divisors in relation to the given equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that since \(b > 1\), it must have a prime divisor \(p\), which could be 2, 3, or 5, and explores the implications of each case on the factorization of 8100.
  • Another participant argues that if \(p\) divides \(b^3\), then \(p\) must also divide \(b\), leading to the conclusion that the only prime that can divide \(b\) is 3, as 2 and 5 do not divide 8100 in a way that maintains the conditions of the problem.
  • Further clarification is sought on why the only possible value for \(b\) is 3, with participants discussing the implications of \(b\) being a power of 3 and how it affects the divisibility of \(a^2\).
  • One participant emphasizes that if \(b\) is a power of 3, then \(b^3\) must also be a power of 3, and since the highest power of 3 that divides 8100 is \(3^4\), it limits the possible values for \(b\) to 3, 27, and 81, ultimately concluding that \(b\) must be 3.
  • Another participant elaborates on the reasoning behind their approach, noting that if \(p\) divides \(b\), it cannot divide \(a\) if \(a\) and \(b\) are coprime, thus leading to restrictions on the possible values of \(b\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that \(b\) must be 3, but there are varying approaches and interpretations of the implications of prime factorization and coprimality. The discussion remains open to further exploration of the methods used.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the necessity of specifying the values that \(k\) can take, indicating that the reasoning may depend on the specific powers of the prime factors involved. There is also a recognition that different methods of approaching the problem may yield insights into more general cases.

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hey again! (Smile)

I am looking at the following exercise:

Why aren't there coprime integers $a,b>1$, such that $a^2 b^3=8100$?

That's what I have tried:

$b>1$,so it has a prime divisor $p$.

$p$ can be $2 , 3 \text{ or } 5$.

  • $p=2$:

    $$b=2k, k \in \mathbb{Z}$$

    Then, $a^2 \cdot 2^3 \cdot k^3=2^2 \cdot 3^4 \cdot 5^2$ ,that is not possible,because the prime $2$ appears at the left side more times than at the right side.
  • $p=5$

    $$b=5k, k \in \mathbb{Z}$$

    Then, $a^2 \cdot 5^3 \cdot k^3=2^2 \cdot 3^4 \cdot 5^2$, that is not possible,because the prime $5$ appears at the left side more times than at the right side.
  • $p=3$

    $$ b=3k, k \in \mathbb{Z}$$

    Then, $a^2 \cdot 3^3 \cdot k^3=2^2 \cdot 3^4 \cdot 5^2$, that is also not possible,because, even if , $3$ is a factor of $k$,it would be $3^3 \cdot \text{ something }$,and so, it can't be that we have the same number of $3$ at both sides.

Can I say it like that or have I done something wrong? Also,don't I have to say which values can $k$ take? Because it can't take different values from powers of $2,3,5$.. (Thinking) :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would approach it this way:

If $p|b^3$ then $p|b$, so that $p^3|b^3$ and thus $p^3|8100$.

Thus the only prime which can divide $b$ is $3$, as $8\not\mid 8100$ and $125\not\mid 8100$.

Since $b^3$ is a perfect cube, and $3^4 = 81$ is not, the only possible value for $b^3$ is $27$, or $b = 3$.

But then, we have that $3|a^2 = \dfrac{8100}{27} = 300$, that is: $3|a$, so that $a$ and $b$ are not co-prime.

Also, observe $300$ is NOT a perfect square.
 
Hey! :)

evinda said:
Can I say it like that or have I done something wrong? Also,don't I have to say which values can $k$ take? Because it can't take different values from powers of $2,3,5$.. (Thinking) :confused:

Yep. You can say it like that. It is perfect! ;)
Furthermore, for the line of reasoning it is irrelevant which values $k$ might take. So that is fine too.
 
Deveno said:
Since $b^3$ is a perfect cube, and $3^4 = 81$ is not, the only possible value for $b^3$ is $27$, or $b = 3$.

But then, we have that $3|a^2 = \dfrac{8100}{27} = 300$, that is: $3|a$, so that $a$ and $b$ are not co-prime.

Also, observe $300$ is NOT a perfect square.

Could you explain it further to me? Why is the only possible value for $b, 3$ ? :confused:

- - - Updated - - -

I like Serena said:
Hey! :)
Yep. You can say it like that. It is perfect! ;)
Furthermore, for the line of reasoning it is irrelevant which values $k$ might take. So that is fine too.

Great!Thanks a lot! (Clapping)
 
evinda said:
Could you explain it further to me? Why is the only possible value for $b, 3$ ? :confused:

You already understand that the only prime divisors of $b$ are $2,3,5$.

If $b = 2k$, as you say, then $b^3 = 8k^3$. This means $8|b^3$ and $b^3|8100$, so $8|8100$, which is false.

The same kind of reasoning applies if $5|b$ (this is the same as what you wrote "without the $k$").

So out of $2,3,5$, the only prime which stands a chance of dividing $b$ is 3. This means $b$ is a power of 3.

The only powers of 3 that divide 8100 are: 1, 3, 27 and 81. Since $b > 1$, that leaves 3, 27 and 81.

Now if $b$ is a power of 3, so is $b^3$: if $b = 3^k$, then $b^3 = (3^k)^3 = 3^{3k}$.

But the highest power of 3 that divides 8100 is $3^4 = 81$.

This means that $3k \leq 4$, so $k = 0,1$. We have already ruled out $k = 0$ (since $b > 1$), so it HAS to be that $k = 1$.

And if $k = 1$, so that $b = 3$, then $b^3 = 27$, so:

$a^2 = \dfrac{8100}{27} = 300$, which is divisible by 3.

*************

I'd like to explain a bit about WHY I approach it this way: your method "counts" powers of each prime for possible prime factors of $b$. There is nothing wrong with this, because the possible powers of prime factors of:

$8100 = 2^2\cdot3^4\cdot5^2$

are all SMALL, if nothing else, we could try every single possibility.

This approach would be much more involved if we tried to use it for:

$n = 2^{352}\cdot5^{682}\cdot7^{22}$.

What I am trying to get across is if $\text{gcd}(a,b) = 1$, then if $p$ divides $b$, it doesn't divide $a$. So if we were trying to express:

$n = a^2b^3$, for example, then if 5 (for example) was a factor of $b$, then $b$ contains ALL the powers of 5 that occur in $n$.

This can only happen if 682 is divisible by 3, which is not the case. We can use the same reasoning to deduce that 2 is not a factor of $b$. This means that $b = 7^k$, and thus $b^3 = 7^{3k}$, and since ALL the powers of 7 in the factorization of $n$ occur in $b$, it HAS to be that $3k = 22$, which is impossible.

***************

I do NOT want to give the impression your approach is "wrong", because it is fine. I merely hope that you can see that a method which generalizes better is more useful than one tied to a "specific case".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K