Why aren't there coprime integers?

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

The discussion centers on the impossibility of finding coprime integers \(a\) and \(b\) greater than 1 such that \(a^2 b^3 = 8100\). The analysis reveals that the only prime divisor of \(b\) can be 3, as both 2 and 5 lead to contradictions when considering the prime factorization of 8100. Consequently, if \(b = 3\), then \(a^2 = \frac{8100}{27} = 300\), which is divisible by 3, confirming that \(a\) and \(b\) cannot be coprime. The conclusion emphasizes that the only valid value for \(b\) is 3, leading to the realization that \(a\) must also share a prime factor with \(b\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of prime factorization and coprime integers
  • Familiarity with algebraic manipulation of equations
  • Knowledge of perfect squares and cubes
  • Basic concepts of number theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of coprime integers in number theory
  • Learn about prime factorization techniques and their applications
  • Explore the concept of greatest common divisors (GCD) and their implications
  • Investigate perfect squares and cubes in relation to integer equations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying number theory, educators teaching algebra, and anyone interested in the properties of integers and their relationships.

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
963
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · 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