Talk:Euclid's lemma: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Michael Hardy
No edit summary
imported>Michael Underwood
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


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 factorazation)? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 20:35, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
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 factorazation)? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 20:35, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
How do you feel about the following?
'''Lemma:''' Suppose ''p'' and ''q'' are [[relatively prime]] integers and that ''p''|''kq'' for some integer ''k''.  Then ''p''|''k''.
'''Proof:''' Because ''p'' and ''q'' are relatively prime, the [[Euclidean Algorithm]] tells us that
there exist integers ''r'' and ''s'' such that 1=gcd(''p'',''q'')=''rp''+''sq''.
Next, since ''p''|''kq'' there exists some integer ''n'' such that ''np=kq''.  Now write
: ''k''=(''rp''+''sq'')''k'' = ''rpk'' + ''s''(''kq'') = ''rpk'' + ''snp'' = ''p''(''rk''+''sn'').
Since ''rk''+''sn'' is an integer, this shows that ''p''|''k'' as desired.
''(Is there an end-of-proof symbol we should use?)''
Now in the proof of Euclid's Lemma, since ''p''|''ab'' and ''a'' and ''p'' are relatively prime, by the above lemma ''p''|''b''
so the proof is complete.
The proof can also be rephrased along these lines:
Let ''a'', ''b'', ''p'' <math>\in\mathbb{Z}</math> with ''p'' prime, and
suppose that ''p'' is a divisor of ''ab'', ''p''|''ab''.
Now let ''g''=gcd(''a'',''p'').  Since ''p'' is prime and ''g'' divides it, then either ''g''=''p'' or ''g''=1.
In the first case, ''p'' divides ''a'' by the definition of the gcd, so we are done.
In the second case we have that ''a'' and ''p'' are relatively prime and that ''p''|''ba'' so by the above lemma,
''p'' divides ''b''.
Thus in either case ''p'' divides (at least) one of ''a'' and ''b''.
[[User:Michael Underwood|Michael Underwood]] 13:55, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 13:55, 8 August 2007

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 factorazation)? Michael Hardy 20:35, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


How do you feel about the following?

Lemma: Suppose p and q are relatively prime integers and that p|kq for some integer k. Then p|k.

Proof: Because p and q are relatively prime, the Euclidean Algorithm tells us that there exist integers r and s such that 1=gcd(p,q)=rp+sq. Next, since p|kq there exists some integer n such that np=kq. Now write

k=(rp+sq)k = rpk + s(kq) = rpk + snp = p(rk+sn).

Since rk+sn is an integer, this shows that p|k as desired.

(Is there an end-of-proof symbol we should use?)

Now in the proof of Euclid's Lemma, since p|ab and a and p are relatively prime, by the above lemma p|b so the proof is complete.

The proof can also be rephrased along these lines:

Let a, b, p with p prime, and suppose that p is a divisor of ab, p|ab. Now let g=gcd(a,p). Since p is prime and g divides it, then either g=p or g=1. In the first case, p divides a by the definition of the gcd, so we are done. In the second case we have that a and p are relatively prime and that p|ba so by the above lemma, p divides b. Thus in either case p divides (at least) one of a and b.

Michael Underwood 13:55, 8 August 2007 (CDT)