39

I'm looking for an understandable proof of this theorem, and also a complex one involving beautiful math techniques such as analytic number theory, or something else. I hope you can help me on that. Thank you very much

Chris Brooks
  • 7,424
  • 8
    This isn't really a deep enough identity to have a complicated proof. – Qiaochu Yuan Apr 03 '13 at 06:47
  • 8
    If you think of numbers as (multi)sets of prime numbers, it's really very obvious. GCD is the (multiset) intersection of $a$ and $b$, LCM is their symmetric difference (xor), and multiplication gives multiset union. Or in simpler terms: GCD is where they overlap, LCM is where they don't, and the $\times$ combines the two. Obviously that'll just give you the union, ie $ab$. This wouldn't really be a proof unless you defined the multi-set analogy rigorously, though (which would be easy but boring). – Jack M Apr 03 '13 at 06:52
  • 2
    @JackM: What do you mean by "symmetric difference (xor) of multisets", or "LCM is where they don't"?? – Marc van Leeuwen Apr 03 '13 at 08:24
  • 2
    @MarcvanLeeuwen Sorry, I misspoke. LCM is not the symmetric difference of multisets. LCM is actually the smallest multiset containing both $a$ and $b$, which in particular makes it the multiset union of $a$ and $b$ minus the multiset intersection of $a$ and $b$. With regular sets that would indeed be the XOR, but with multisets it's a bit (not much) more complicated. The OP's proposition still follows trivially, however. – Jack M Apr 03 '13 at 12:46
  • 1
    @JackM: The smallest multiset containing both $a$ and $b$ is what is usually called the multiset union of $a$ and $b$, which differs from the multiset sum by their multiset intersection. And for regular sets you get the ordinary union, corresponding to (inclusive) OR. – Marc van Leeuwen Apr 03 '13 at 12:52
  • @MarcvanLeeuwen I see. I was pretty much improvising my own terminology, I didn't even think to check the conventional terminology. My bad. – Jack M Apr 03 '13 at 13:19
  • See also http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/144709/mathrmlcma-b-and-gcda-b. – lhf Sep 25 '13 at 00:42
  • @JackM I find it difficult to see how LCM is NOT the symmmetric difference. – Don Larynx Jan 26 '15 at 15:15
  • There is a book called "Mathematics Made Difficult" that gives convoluted but technically correct proofs of simple ideas. Some of them are so convoluted that the proof made me laugh out loud. – Hank Igoe Jan 11 '21 at 01:46

12 Answers12

54

Let $\gcd(a,b)=d$. Then for some $a_0,b_0$ such that $a_0$ and $b_0$ are relatively prime, we have $a=da_0$ and $b=d b_0$. If we can show that the lcm of $a$ and $b$ is $da_0b_0$, we will be finished.

Certainly $da_0b_0$ is a common multiple of $a$ and $b$. We must show that it is the least common multiple.

Let $m$ be a common multiple of $a$ and $b$. We will show that $da_0b_0$ divides $m$.

Since $m$ is a multiple of $a$, we have $m=ka=ka_0d$ for some $k$. But $b$ divides $m$, so $db_0$ divides $ka_0d$, and therefore $b_0$ divides $ka_0$. Since $a_0$ and $b_0$ are relatively prime, it follows that $b_0$ divides $k$, and we are finished.

André Nicolas
  • 507,029
  • +1. But in the end you used a version of Euclid's lemma, which can be avoided. – Marc van Leeuwen Apr 03 '13 at 08:47
  • Why are they necessarily relatively prime? – Don Larynx Jan 26 '15 at 17:03
  • 5
    @DonLarynx: They meaning $a_0$ and $b_0$? If they are not, then $a$ and $b$ have a common divisor greater than $d$. – André Nicolas Jan 26 '15 at 17:20
  • 1
    Thank you for your reply André , however it is not clear to me how that is true. If $d = gcd(a, b)$ then we have $da_0 = a$ and $db_0 = b$. Then, assuming $gcd(a_0, b_0) \neq 1$ and $b_0 \geq a_0$, we have $\exists k \in\Bbb{Z} : b_0 = ka_0$ and thus $da_0 = a, dka_0 = b$. But all that this tells me is that $d$ and $a_0$ are divisors of $a, b$. That means that $d*a_0$ would be the gcd instead of $d$. So is that interpretation correct? – Don Larynx Jan 26 '15 at 17:36
  • 3
    @DonLarynx: Details depend on how one defines gcd. I am taking the school definition, biggest common divisor, though we can adjust the proof if we use the "divides every common divisor" definition. Suppose that $a_0$ and $b_0$ are not relatively prime. Then some $w\gt 1$ divides both of them. Then $dw$ divides both $a$ and $b$, contradicting the fact that $d$ is the gcd of $a$ and $b$. – André Nicolas Jan 26 '15 at 17:46
  • Thanks a lot, this helped. – Don Larynx Jan 26 '15 at 17:50
  • @DonLarynx: You are welcome. – André Nicolas Jan 26 '15 at 17:51
  • 2
    Why does $db_0 | dka_0$ imply that $b_0 | ka_0$? – Don Larynx Feb 04 '15 at 20:51
  • By your first divisibility condition, we have $dka_0=qdb_0$ for some $q$. Cancel the $d$. We get ka_0=qb_0$, so $b_0$ divides $ka_0$. – André Nicolas Feb 04 '15 at 21:05
  • Would you please explain the last sentence? – Yeasin Mollik Apr 20 '20 at 19:54
  • 1
    @YaseenMollik $m=k a_0 d$ and if you divide that by $a_0b_0d$ then $a_0,d$ cancel so if $b_0$ divides $k$ then the division gives an integer. – user1001001 Jun 29 '20 at 13:56
  • Implicit in this argument of course is that $d\neq 0$. – user7530 Sep 04 '20 at 21:18
37

First notice that $$ \dfrac{ab}{\gcd(a,b)} = a\dfrac{b}{\gcd(a,b)} = b\dfrac{a}{\gcd(a,b)} $$ is a common multiple of $a$ and $b$. By the minimality of the $\operatorname{lcm}$, $$ \frac{ab}{\gcd(a,b)}\ge\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)\Longrightarrow ab\ge\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)\gcd(a,b)\tag{1} $$ By division, we can write $$ ab = q\operatorname{lcm}(a,b) + r\quad\text{where}\quad0 \le r \lt \operatorname{lcm}(a,b) $$ Because $ab$ and $\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)$ are common multiples of $a$ and $b$, so is $r$. By the minimality of the $\operatorname{lcm}$, $r = 0$. Therefore, $\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)$ divides $ab$. Notice that $$ \frac{ab}{\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)} = \frac{a}{\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)/b} = \frac{b}{\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)/a} $$ is a common divisor of $a$ and $b$. By the maximality of the $\gcd$, $$ \frac{ab}{\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)} \le \gcd(a,b)\Longrightarrow ab\le\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)\gcd(a,b)\tag{2} $$ Combining $(1)$ and $(2)$, we get $$ ab = \operatorname{lcm}(a,b)\gcd(a,b) $$

robjohn
  • 345,667
  • 4
    very nice and elementary – Jonathan Apr 03 '13 at 14:17
  • 2
    @Jonathan: Elementary!? I don't see an elementary but nice formal approach. here :-) – Mikasa Apr 03 '13 at 17:37
  • 6
    I'm not sure what you mean, but I didn't mean "elementary" in any pejorative sense -- just working with simple tools. – Jonathan Apr 03 '13 at 17:42
  • 5
    @Jonathan: I took it as a compliment :-) – robjohn Apr 03 '13 at 18:32
  • Sorry for necrobump this but, I cannot see why $ab/(lcm(a,b)\leq gcd$, the only thing that you proved in (2) is that either $lcm(a,b)/b \leq gcd$, or $lcm(a,b)/a \leq gcd$. – user2820579 Aug 01 '17 at 22:09
  • @user2820579: the maximality of the gcd. – robjohn Aug 01 '17 at 23:46
  • Could you please explain "By the minimality of the lcm, r=0". Couldn't we just say r = 0, because both a*b, and lcm(a, b) are multiples of (a, b), therefore lcm(a, b) divides evenly a*b, leaving 0 remainder? – Dominic Farolino Feb 03 '19 at 19:52
  • Oh nice, it makes sense because r must strictly be less than lcm(a, b) while also being a multiple, meaning it must be 0. I see. However, does my previous comment still hold? Can we not say lcm(a, b) divides a*b because they are both multiples, and lcm(a, b) <= a*b? – Dominic Farolino Feb 03 '19 at 20:09
  • @DominicFarolino: multiples of what? $45$ and $75$ are both multiples of $3$ and $5$ and $45\le75$, but $45$ does not divide $75$. – robjohn Feb 03 '19 at 22:50
  • Was the downvote because there was something wrong with the answer? If so, it would be nice to know what. – robjohn Oct 01 '19 at 07:29
  • In the first equality two lines above equation (2), why must $\dfrac{ab}{\mathrm{lcm}(a, b)}$ be an integer? – Junglemath Nov 20 '19 at 00:23
  • 1
    @Junglemath: I had tried to show that in the passage above, starting at "By division, we can write" and ending at "Therefore, $\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)$ divides $ab$." – robjohn Nov 20 '19 at 05:43
  • 1
    In my abstract book, lcm(a,b) divides all other multiples is a slightly later result. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a perhaps more elementary method of arriving at (2) for some folks is: Note, lcm(a,b)=ap and lcm(a,b)=bq. Since (a,b)=as+bt, we have that (a,b)lcm(a,b)=aslcm(a,b)+btlcm(a,b)=abqs+abpt=ab(qs+pt). It follows that ab|(a,b)lcm(a,b). Thus ab <= (a,b)lcm(a,b). – greycatbird Apr 14 '20 at 02:20
  • @greycatbird: A proof that $\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)$ divides all other common multiples is provided. The fact that there exist $s$ and $t$ so that $(a,b)=as+bt$ also requires some justification, which probably requires the division algorithm. – robjohn Apr 15 '20 at 10:47
15

The following is more general than for the integers, and therefore simpler (but longer than a proof using unique factorisation without proving it; here we start from scrap).

Let $R$ be an integral domain, where $d=\gcd(a,b)$ is defined to mean that $d\mid a,b$ and $d'\mid a,b\implies d'\mid d$ for all $d'\in R$, while $\def\lcm{\operatorname{lcm}}m=\lcm(a,b)$ is defined to mean that $a,b\mid m$ and $a,b\mid m'\implies m\mid m'$ for all $m'\in R$ (in both cases it is not implied that $\gcd(a,b)$ or $\lcm(a,b)$ always exist, and if they do they are only unique up to multiplication by invertible elements; as a consequence in this setting the equality $\gcd(a,b)\times\lcm(a,b)=ab$ can only be asserted up to such multiplication, or for properly chosen values on the left hand side).

Lemma. Let $r\in R\setminus\{0\}$, and put $D_r=\{\, d\in R: d\mid r\,\}$, the set of divisors of $r$. Then $f_r:d\mapsto r/d$ defines an involution of $D_r$ which is an anti-isomorphism for the divisibility relation: for $a,b\in D_r$ one has $a\mid b\iff f(b)\mid f(a)$.

Proof. Since by definition $d f(d)=r$ for all $d\in D_r$ one has $f(d)\in D_r$ and $f(f(d))=d$. Suppose $a,b\in D_r$ satisfy $a\mid b$, so there exists $c\in R$ with $ac=b$, then $r=bf(b)=acf(b)$ so $f(a)=cf(b)$ and $f(b)\mid f(a)$. Conversly if $f(b)\mid f(a)$ applying this result gives $f(f(a))\mid f(f(b))$ which simplifies to $a\mid b$. QED

Proposition. If $ab\neq0$ and $m=\lcm(a,b)$ exists, then $ab/m=\gcd(a,b)$.

Proof. One has $a,b\mid ab$ so $m\mid ab$ by definition of the $\lcm$; therefore $a,b,m\in D_{ab}$. One has $f_{ab}(a)=b$ and $f_{ab}(b)=a$, and since $a,b\mid m$ one has $f_{ab}(m)\mid b,a$ by the lemma. Also if $d'\in R$ satisfies $d'\mid a,b$ then $d'\in D_{ab}$ so $b,a\mid f_{ab}(d')$ by the lemma, whence $m\mid f_{ab}(d')$ by definition of the $\lcm$, and once again by the lemma $d'\mid f_{ab}(m)$. Thus $$ab/m=f_{ab}(m)=\gcd(a,b). \qquad\text{QED}$$

Concluding $\gcd(a,b)\times \lcm(a,b)=ab$ needs the precaution that it only holds if $\lcm(a,b)$ exists, and then the left hand side is defined up to invertible factors only, so the equality should be interpreted in this sense. For the case $ab=0$ not covered by the proposition one has $0=\lcm(a,b)$ and $\{a,b\}=\{0,\gcd(a,b)\}$, so the equality holds without any difficulty.

Note that the existence of $\gcd(a,b)$ does not imply the existence of $\lcm(a,b)$ in general.

Albert
  • 727
  • Readers can find another involution-based proof in this answer. – Bill Dubuque Feb 26 '14 at 18:44
  • 1
    Dear Marc! Let me ask you the following question: If $ab=0$ then at least one of them is zero since we are in Integral Domain, i.e. $a=0$ or $b=0$. How it follows that $\text{lcm}(a,b)=0$? Suppose that $a=0$ then $\text{lcm}(a,b)=\text{lcm}(0,b)$ but the last term is meaningless. – RFZ Jun 16 '18 at 14:25
  • @ZFR The only multiple of $0$ is $0$ itself, which is also a multiple of any other element of $R$. So even without pondering on the meaning of "least" here, it stands to reason that $\operatorname{lcm}(0,b)=0$ for any $b$, and indeed that is how it is defined whenever one wants $\operatorname{lcm}$ to be defined for all elements (and for completeness, $\gcd(0,b)=b$ for any $b$). And by "the equation" I refer to the one of the title of the OP question. – Marc van Leeuwen Oct 01 '20 at 12:07
13

Let's prime factorize a and b.Let $a=p_1^{x_1}p_2^{x_2}\cdots\cdot q$ and $b=p_1^{y_1}p_2^{y_2}\cdots r$ where $p_i$'s are distinct primes and GCD$(r,q)=1$ Then

GCD$(a,b)=p_1^{\min(x_1,y_1)}p_2^{\min (x_2,y_2)} \cdots$

LCM$(a,b)= qrp_1^{\max(x_1,y_1)}p_2^{\max(x_2,y_2)}\cdots$

Then since $\min(x, y) + \max(x, y) = x+y$, we have LCM$(a,b)$GCD$(a,b)=ab$

wilsonw
  • 1,016
6

I think this is a simple one:

By definition, a least common multiple of a pair of integers $a$ and $b$ is an integer $m$ such that $a|m$, $b|m$, and $m$ divides every common multiple of $a$ and $b$.

Just look that if $c$ is a common multiple of $a$ and $b$, we have that $c=ax=by$ for some integers $x$ and $y$.

Then $\frac{a}{(a,b)}x=\frac{b}{(a,b)}y$, and because $\left(\frac{a}{(a,b)},\frac{b}{(a,b)}\right)=1$, we have that $\frac{a}{(a,b)}$ divides $y$.

So $y=\frac{a}{(a,b)}n$ for some integer $n$ and $c=\frac{ba}{(a,b)}n$. This shows that every time you have a common multiple of $a$ and $b$ it can be divisible by $\frac{ba}{(a,b)}$, then $[a,b]=\frac{ba}{(a,b)}$.

Yesid
  • 450
5

The following simple duality-based proof works in any integral domain.

Theorem $\rm\quad gcd(a,b)\, =\, ab/lcm(a,b)\ \ $ if $\ \ \rm lcm(a,b) \;$ exists, and $\rm\ ab\ne 0$

Proof $\rm\quad d\mid a,b\!\color{#c00}\iff\! a,b\mid ab/d \!\iff\! lcm(a,b)\mid ab/d \color{#c00}\iff d\mid ab/lcm(a,b)$

Remark $\ $ The red equivalences are $\rm\:x\mid y\color{#c00}\iff y'\mid x'\:$ for $\rm\ x'\! = ab/x\ $ being reflection on the divisors of $\rm\:ab,\:$ highlighting the $\rm\ gcd = lcm' \ $ duality, namely

$$\rm gcd(a,b)\, =\, \frac{ab}{lcm(b,a)}\, =\, lcm(a',b)'\qquad\quad $$

See here for a proof emphasizing this reflection (involution) and the innate duality.

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
Math Gems
  • 19,574
  • 2
    The middle equivalence is true, but $a,b\mid c\Rightarrow\mathrm{lcm}(a,b)\mid c$ almost feels like we're assuming something we are trying to show. It may be that things are so basic at this level, that I am not sure what we can assume. – robjohn Apr 03 '13 at 20:35
  • @robjohn It is not circular. The hypothesis that $\rm\ lcm(a,b)\ $ exists means, by definition, that $\rm\ a,b\mid x\iff lcm(a,b)\mid x.:$ Dually, $\rm\ x\mid a,b \iff x\mid gcd(a,b),:$ if said gcd exists. These are the universal definitions of lcm,gcd used in general domains, where least/greatest means wrt divisibility. They're equivalent to the well-known definitions in Euclidean domains, where least/greatest means wrt Euclidean value ("size"), e.g. $\rm:|x|:$ in $\rm:\Bbb Z,:$ and $\rm:deg(f(x)):$ in $\rm:F[x].$ – Math Gems Apr 03 '13 at 20:59
  • 1
    My impression was that $\mathrm{lcm}(a,b)$ is the least positive number that is a multiple of both $a$ and $b$. That it divides all other common multiples of $a$ and $b$ is not immediately obvious. This is why I felt it necessary to prove that $\mathrm{lcm}(a,b)\mid ab$ in my answer. – robjohn Apr 03 '13 at 21:13
  • 1
    @robjohn The division algorithm yields a one-line proof that in $\rm,\Bbb Z,$ a common multiple is least in value iff it is divisibly least (i.e. divides all common multiples). Similarly in other Euclidean domains, as I said above. – Math Gems Apr 03 '13 at 21:37
  • 1
    Yes, that is essentially the proof that I used. However, I assume that the person asking a basic question would be dealing in $\mathbb{Z}$, and have little familiarity with other Euclidean domains. This is the basis of my earlier discomfort. In any case, I see where you are coming from. (+1) – robjohn Apr 03 '13 at 21:47
4

I don't know that you are familiar to the Group theory, but if you consider groups $\mathbb Z_a$ and $\mathbb Z_b$ then the following homomorphism can do what you are looking for. I mean: $$\phi: \mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z_a\times\mathbb Z_b,~~~~n\mapsto(n|_{\text{mod}~a},n|_{\text{mod}~b})$$

Mikasa
  • 67,374
  • I can see that the LCM generates the kernel of this homomorphism, but would you please explain where the GCD comes in? It should be the index of the image in the codomain, but is this so obvious? – Marc van Leeuwen Apr 03 '13 at 08:22
  • @MarcvanLeeuwen: Honestly, at the first view, No. You are right. In fact the OP should use the first theorem of homomorphism and find the kernel and the image of the map. However, the OP preferred the answer via number theory approach. – Mikasa Apr 03 '13 at 08:30
4

Brute Force Approach
We can write $a$ and $b$ in the following manner: $$a=d x_0,\;b=d y_0$$ $$m=a p_0=b q_0$$ Here $d=gcd(a,b)$ and $m=lcm(a,b)$. And both $\{x_0,y_0\}$ and $\{p_0,q_0\}$ are sets of co-prime numbers.

By multiplication, we can write: $$ab=d^2x_0y_0$$ $$ab\cdot p_0 q_0=m^2$$ Multiplying both equations: $$(ab)^2\cdot p_0q_0=(md)^2 \cdot x_0y_0$$ Now we only need to prove that $p_0q_0=x_0y_0$, in fact we can prove that $x_0=q_0$ and $y_0=p_0$.

Using the first two equations: $$\frac{a}{b}=\frac{x_0}{y_0}=\frac{q_0}{p_0}$$ Because $\{x_0,y_0\}$ and $\{p_0,q_0\}$ are sets of co-prime numbers, both $\frac{x_0}{y_0}$ and $\frac{q_0}{p_0}$ are the simplest or irreducible fractions of $\frac{a}{b}$. Hence both the numerators and denominators are equal i.e. $x_0=q_0$ and $y_0=p_0$.
$$\require{cancel} (ab)^2\cdot \cancel{p_0q_0}=(md)^2 \cdot \cancel{x_0y_0}$$ $$(ab)^2=(md)^2 \Rightarrow ab=md$$


Thanks for reading!

atin
  • 288
2

Easy proof:

$$[p,q] = p*q, \space if \space (p, q) = 1$$ [p, q] = lcm(p, q) and (p, q)=gcd(p, q). This can be proved using only simple property of relatively prime numbers.

Another fact: $$ [mp, mq] = m[p, q] \space if \space m\in N $$ Since common multiple is all about dividable relation, multiply everything by m won't change that.
let $(p, q) = d, so \space (p/d,q/d)=1$ $$ (p,q)[p,q] = d*d*[p/d,q/d]=d*d*\frac{p}{d}*\frac{q}{d}=pq $$

1

Let $\ell= \text{lcm}(a,b), g=\text{gcd}(a,b)$ for some $a,b$ positive integers.

Division algorithm: exists $q,r$ integers with $0\leq r < \ell$ such $ab = q\ell + r$. Observing that both $a$ and $b$ divide both $ab$ and $q\ell$ we conclude they both divide $r$. As $r$ is a common multiple, we must have $\ell \leq r$ or $r\leq 0$ so $r=0$.

Therefore $s=\frac{ab}{\ell}$ is an integer. Observe that $\frac{a}{s}=\frac{\ell}{b}$ and $\frac{b}{s}=\frac{\ell}{a}$ are both integers, so $s$ is a common divisor. Thus $g\geq s = \frac{ab}{\ell}$.

On the other hand, $\frac{ab}{g}=a\frac{b}{g}=b\frac{a}{g}$ where $\frac{b}{g}$ and $\frac{a}{g}$ are both integers, so $\frac{ab}{g}$ is a common multiple of $a$ and $b$. As $\frac{ab}{g}>0$ we conclude $\frac{ab}{g}\geq \ell$, therefoire $\frac{ab}{\ell}\geq g$ and we are done.

Steve
  • 555
0

I don't know if it is the easiest proof but here an other solution using the Gauss lemma.

1-
$GCD(a;b)=d \Rightarrow a=dx, b=dy$ with $x,y,d \in \mathbb{N}$ and $GCD(x;y)=1$
More over we can writte$\frac{ab}{d}=ay=bx$ so it cames that the integer $ay=bx$ is a commom multiple of $a$ and $b$ by definition.

2-
Now let note $m=LCM(a;b) \Rightarrow \exists k,l \in \mathbb{N} $ s.t. $ m = ak = bl \Rightarrow \frac{m}{d}=\frac{xdk}{d}=\frac{ydl}{d}=xk=yl \in \mathbb{N}$

3-
Reminder: Gauss lemma: If $a,b,c$ are three integers such that $a$ and $b$ are coprime and $a$ divides $bc$ then $a$ divises $c$.
We take $x,y$ two coprime integers and $l$. As we wrotte above $xk=yl \Rightarrow \frac{yl}{x}=k \in \mathbb{N}$ so $x$ divides $yl=\frac{m}{d}$. Hence by the Gauss lemma we get that $x$ divides $l$. Equivalently we get by the same justification that $y$ divides $k$.
So we can writte: $m=bl=dyl=dyxl'$ with $l=xl'$ and on the other side $m=ak=dxk=dxyk'$ with $k=xk'$

4-
From "-3" we got that $dyxl'= m = dxyk'\Rightarrow l'=k'$. But $m$ is by def the smallest commom multiplier so $l'=1=k'$ and we get that $LCM(a;b)=dxy$.
Rem: Indeed $dxy$ is all ready by def a commom multiplier of $a$ and $b$ because $dxy$ is all ready a multiple of $a$ and $b$ as it is divisible by them!

5-
So: $GCD(a;b)LCM(a;b)=ddxy=d^2xy$ while $ab=dxdy=d^2xy$
Q.E.D.

OffHakhol
  • 708
-1

Easy proof by set theory: (I'm a beginner and thought of this, please correct if me if I'm wrong)

Let $a=xy, b=xz$.

So $a = \{x,y\}$ and $b = \{x, y\}$,

where $x$ is the product of the common prime factors of $a, b$ which is $\gcd(a,b)$ and the product $xyz$ produces $\text{lcm}(a,b)$

By Set Theory,

$P(a \cup b) \cdot P(a \cap b) = P(a) \cdot P(b)$.

$xyz \cdot x = xy \cdot xz$

lcm(a,b) * gcd(a,b) = ab

amWhy
  • 209,954
andrea
  • 21