User talk:Michael Underwood: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Michael Hardy |
imported>Michael Underwood No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
=== Welcome === | === Welcome === | ||
You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link [[CZ:Workgroups]].You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have. | You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link [[CZ:Workgroups]].You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 9: | ||
''Kind Regards'', | ''Kind Regards'', | ||
[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:grey"> <font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 17:59, 6 May 2007 (CDT) | [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:grey"> <font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 17:59, 6 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
== [[Euclid's lemma]] == | == [[Euclid's lemma]] == | ||
Revision as of 13:02, 8 August 2007
[User bio is in User:Your Name]
Welcome
You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link CZ:Workgroups.You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have.
Kind Regards,
Robert Tito | Talk 17:59, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
Euclid's lemma
- and since gcd(a, p) = 1 and n is an integer, b/p must also be an integer
I'm afraid you've lost me. How can you draw this conclusion without assuming either Euclid's lemma or uniqueness of prime factorization (the first of which certainly involves circular reasoning and is thus a logical fallacy, and the secdon of which is vulnerable to the same danger since Euclid's lemma is often used for proving uniqueness of factorization)? Michael Hardy 20:37, 3 August 2007 (CDT)