3

I figured the best way to go about this would be to show that $(m,y)(n,x) \mid (mx+ny,mn)$ and $(mx+ny,mn) \mid (m,y)(n,x)$. So far I've done the following:

Since $\mathbb{Z}$ is a Euclidean domain, $\exists s,t\in\mathbb Z$ s. t. $(mx+ny,mn)=(mx+ny)s +mnt = mxs+nys+mnt = (m,y)(n,x)\left(\frac{mxs+nys+mnt}{(m,y)(n,x)}\right)$. Thus, $(m,y)(n,x) \mid (mx+ny,mn)$, since $\frac{mxs+nys+mnt}{(m,y)(n,x)} \in \mathbb{Z}$.

$\exists a,b,c,d\in\mathbb Z$ s.t. $(m,y) = ma+yb\;\&\;(n,x) = nc+xd$.

Then, $(m,y)(n,x)= (ma+yb)(nc+xd)=mnac+mxad+nybc+xybd$.

From here I'm not seeing any way to show that $(mx+ny,mn) \mid (m,y)(n,x)$. If anyone could give any hints I would appreciate it, thanks!

PinkyWay
  • 4,565
BalsamicVinegar
  • 413
  • 2
  • 9
  • may I ask where you found that task? Maybe it would be useful for me as a student as well.(: – PinkyWay Feb 05 '20 at 11:53
  • @VerkhovtsevaKatya It's an exercise in LeVeque's "Fundamentals of Number Theory". – BalsamicVinegar Feb 05 '20 at 12:05
  • 1
    thank you very much! – PinkyWay Feb 05 '20 at 12:06
  • Is this your original problem:https://books.google.hr/books?id=BYvMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=(m,n)+implies+(mx%2Bny,mn)%3D(m,y)(n,x)&source=bl&ots=cp4Z03O00S&sig=ACfU3U3WaA1T7Hzs21eSJffL3MeG4c6now&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFra_TsLrnAhXNl4sKHb9_CKEQ6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=(m%2Cy)(n%2Cx)&f=false ? – PinkyWay Feb 05 '20 at 12:18
  • 1
    @VerkhovtsevaKatya No, it's LeVeque "Fundamentals of Number Theory" (1977) Section 2.1 Exercise 5. – BalsamicVinegar Feb 05 '20 at 12:20

2 Answers2

1

A factor of $mn$ is either in $m$ or in $n$, since $(m,n)=1$. If it’s in $m$ and also in $mx+ny$ but not in $n$, then it must be in $y$, and thus also in $(m,y)$. Thus all factors in $(mx+ny,mn)$ are in $(m,y)$. Likewise for $(n,x)$. It follows that $(mx+ny,mn)\mid(m,y)$ and $(mx+ny,mn)\mid(n,x)$, and either is enough to show $(mx+ny,mn)\mid(m,y)(n,x)$.

joriki
  • 238,052
  • Could you maybe elaborate a little bit? I'm not sure I understand how the result follows – BalsamicVinegar Feb 05 '20 at 13:28
  • @BalsamicVinegar: By "result" I meant just the half that you hadn't proved yet. I've edited the answer to make that more explicit. If it's still unclear, please state specifically which part isn't clear to you. – joriki Feb 05 '20 at 13:41
  • @BalsamicVinegar Be aware that if you wish to make the above answer rigorous then you need to rigorously justify the various claims about "factors being in" etc, e.g. by using existence and uniqueness of prime factorizations, or related results such as Euclid's Lemma, or gcd poperties, – Bill Dubuque Feb 05 '20 at 14:10
0

By Euclid & $\,(\color{#c00}{m,n})=1\!:$ $\ \ \begin{align} \color{#0a0}{(mx\!+\!ny,m)} &=\:\! (\color{#c00}ny,\color{#c00}m) = \color{#0a0}{(y,m)}\\ (mx\!+\!ny,n)\ &= (\color{#c00}mx,\color{#c00}n) = (x,n) \end{align}$

So $\,(\underbrace{mx\!+\!ny}_{\large a},mn) = \underbrace{\color{#0a0}{(y,m)}}_{\large \color{#0a0}{(a,m)}}\underbrace{(x,n)}_{\large (a,n)}\ $ by $\ (a,m)(a,n) = (a(a,\color{#c00}{m,n}),mn) = (a,mn)$

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048