4

Can anyone prove for every $a,b \in \mathbb Z^+ < p$ ( $p$ is a prime), $p \nmid ab$?

I was trying my best to do the problem but like I don't know where to start or anything!

4 Answers4

1

Assuming you mean: $p$ does not divide $ab$.

It comes from the definition of prime. If $p \mid ab$, then $p \mid a$ or $p \mid b$. But we know that if $x \mid y$, and $x,y > 0$, then $x \le y$. Since $a, b < p$, we have $p \nmid ab$ by contradiction.


So as Andres pointed out below, some people say "prime" where I would say "irreducible". So if your definition is "cannot be divided by anything but $\pm 1, \pm p$", use Bezout's theorem.

In my opinion, it's most straightforward to prove it for the equivalent form: for any $a,b,c$, if $a \mid bc$ and $(a,b) = 1$, then $a \mid c$. Then push your proof around until it proves the statement you want.

Henry Swanson
  • 12,972
  • 1
    Most likely that is not the definition being used. – Andrés E. Caicedo Mar 26 '14 at 02:03
  • Yeah, that's definitely possible. But then they can just use unique prime factorization to get that result. (If they don't have that, it'll be a fun trek through the Division Algorithm :P) – Henry Swanson Mar 26 '14 at 02:06
  • This is much more elementary than unique factorization, and does not require the equivalence of being prime and being irreducible, which is what you are using. All that's needed is Bezout's theorem. – Andrés E. Caicedo Mar 26 '14 at 02:08
  • Oh yeah, they could be in the middle of proving UPF, and this is a modification of Euclid's lemma. Yeah, Bezout would be the way to go then. – Henry Swanson Mar 26 '14 at 02:21
  • 1
    @Andres This Prime Divisor Property immediately implies uniqueness of prime factorizations (via a straightforward couple-line induction), so it can hardly be "much more elementary". And the converse is trivial. So the two are (trivially) equivalent. – Bill Dubuque Mar 26 '14 at 02:21
  • @BillDubuque We are all here aware of that. But thanks for the input anyway. – Andrés E. Caicedo Mar 26 '14 at 03:30
  • @Andres How can that be true given the comment that I cited? Did it mean something different? – Bill Dubuque Mar 26 '14 at 04:33
1

Hint $\ $ The set $\,S$ of naturals $\,n\,$ such that $\,\color{#c00}{p\mid nb}\,$ is closed under subtraction and contains $\ a,p\,$ therefore its least positive element $\,\color{#0a0}{d\mid a,p}.\,$ Since $\,\color{#a0f}{d\mid p\ \ \rm prime},\,$ either $\,\color{#a0f}{d=p}\,$ so $\ \color{#0a0}{p=d\mid a},\,$ or $\,\color{#a0f}{d=1}\in S\ $ thus $\ \color{#c00}{p\mid d b = b},\ $ i.e. $\,\ p\mid \color{}a\,$ or $\ p\mid \color{}b.\ \ $ QED

Note $ $ If we know gcds then we know the gcd $\, (p,a)\,$ exists, so we can rewrite the proof as

$$ p\mid pb,ab\,\Rightarrow\, p\mid(pb,ab)\overset{\color{brown}{\rm(D\,L)}}= (p,a)b = b\ \ {\rm if}\ \ \,(p,a)= 1,\ \ {\rm i.e.}\ \ p\nmid a$$

where we used $\,\color{brown}{\rm(DL)}$ = gcd Distributive Law. If you do not know that basic law then you can instead employ the gcd Bezout Identity i.e. $\, (p,a)=1\,$ so $\,jp\!+\!ka = 1\,$ for $\,j,k\in\Bbb Z,\,$ hence

$\qquad\qquad\qquad\ \ p\mid pb, ab\,\Rightarrow\, p\mid jpb,kab\,\Rightarrow\, p\mid (jp\!+\!ka)b = b$

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
0

$a,b < p \Rightarrow ax+py=1 \Rightarrow abx+bpy=b$ and $b<p \Rightarrow$ $p$ does not divide $b \Rightarrow p$ does not divide $ab$.

Mr.Fry
  • 5,003
  • 3
  • 19
  • 28
0

OK, here is as bare bones a proof as I can see at the moment. It uses the well ordering principle and the fact that given any positive integers $n,m$, there are unique integers $q,r$ with $0\le r<m$ such that $n=mq+r$.

Suppose the result is false, so there is some prime for which it fails. There is therefore a smallest prime for which it fails. Call it $p$. So, there are positive integers $a,b<p$ such that $ab=pk$ for some $k$. Pick $k$ as small as possible. I will argue that $k=1$, that is, $a,b<p$ but $ab=p$. This contradicts that $p$ is prime, and we are done.

To prove that $k=1$, we argue again by contradiction: Otherwise, there is a prime factor dividing $k$, call it $q$. Since $a,b<p$, then $kp=ab<p^2$, so $k$ (and therefore $q$) is smaller than $p$. Now, we can write $a=qc+d$ and $b=qe+f$ with $0\le d<q$ and $0\le f<q$. If $d=0$, we can divide $a$ by $q$, and we have that $(a/q)b=p(k/q)$, contradicting the minimality of $k$. Similarly, we reach a contradiction if $f=0$. We can therefore assume that $d,f$ are positive integers, and both are strictly less than $q$.

Finally, we have that $ab=pk$ is a multiple of $q$, but $ab=(qc+d)(qe+f)=qN+df$ for some $N$, and it follows that $q$ divides $df$. We have now contradicted the minimality of $p$ and, with this, concluded the proof.