1

Let $\dfrac{a}{b}=\dfrac{a'}{b'}$ , $a,b,a',b' \in \mathbb{N}$ s.t. $a$ and $b$ have no common factors.
How can we show that the only solution to this equality is $a'=na$ and $b'=nb$, $n$ is a natural number. I know that $a'=na$ and $b'=nb$ is a valid solution of equation-1, because $(an)b=(bn)a$. But how can we prove that this is the only solution?

What I have tried is this:

Version 1. We know the two fractions $\dfrac{a}{b},\dfrac{a'}{b'}$ are equal iff $ab'=a'b\tag{1}.$ Let $ab'=a'b=c$. Now, $a$ and $b$ have no common factors means that they are coprime, so we have, $a=p_1p_2\cdots p_m$ and $b=q_1q_2\cdots q_n$. $p's$ and $q's$ are prime numbers and no $p$ is equal to any $q$. Equation 1 becomes $$(p_1p_2\cdots p_m)b'=(b_1b_2\cdots b_n)a'$$ By the Fundamental theorem of Arithmetic, both the sides should have same prime numbers, so $b'$ should contain $(b_1b_2\cdots b_n)$ and $a'$ should contain $(p_1p_2\cdots p_m)$, i.e. $b'=r(b_1b_2\cdots b_n)=rb$ and $a'=(p_1p_2\cdots p_n)s=sa$, where $r,s \in \mathbb{N}$. Now equation 1 becomes, $a(rb)=(sa)b$. This leaves the only possibility, $r=s$.

Version 2. The idea is basically the same as of version 1, but now I use Euclid's lemma in place of FTA. We know the two fractions $\dfrac{a}{b},\dfrac{a'}{b'}$ are equal iff $ab'=a'b\tag{1}.$ Let $ab'=a'b=c$. $a$ and $b'$ are the factors of $c$, so both of them divide $c$, i.e. $a|c$ and $b'|c$. Now $a|c \implies a|{(a'b)}$, by Euclid's lemma, $a$ divides at least one of $a'$ and $b$, but we know that $a$ doesn't divide $b$, so $a$ has to divide $a'$.

Similarly we can show that $b$ divides $b'$. So we have $a'=\alpha a$ and $b' = \beta b$, where $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{N}$. Substituting these in equation 1 gives $\alpha = \beta$.

Question

  1. Is my method correct?

  2. Is there any other method to prove that $a'=na$ and $b'=nb$ is the only solution of $\dfrac{a}{b}=\dfrac{a'}{b'}$; If yes then please explain.

  3. Also if $a$ and $b$ have common factor then for what condition there does not exist any $n$ s.t. $a'=na$ and $b'=nb$ where $n$ is a natural number. E.g. $\dfrac 39 = \dfrac 26$


P.S: I've just improved my question. Barry's comment points a crucial error in my previous proof. I needed to justify $a|a'$ and $b|b'$. In previous proof I proceeded with proof by contradiction. The proof by contradiction was ok, but unnecessary, so I've replaced it with a direct proof. At the time of asking the question I lacked the knowledge of some introductory number theory concepts. Now I've learned them and soon I will ask in comments for further clarifications. Thank you.

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
user103816
  • 3,831
  • 1
    You might like to learn about the field of fractions of an integral domain :) – Shaun Mar 16 '14 at 09:30
  • 1
    @BarryCipra I edited my question. Is it correct now? – user103816 Mar 16 '14 at 10:23
  • 2
    @anupam, yes, your edit makes the statement true. But your method for proving it is not correct. In your proof, you are assuming that $a'$ and $b'$ are multiples of $a$ and $b$, so all your proof shows is that they can't be different multiples. You still need to show that $a\mid a'$ and $b\mid b'$. – Barry Cipra Mar 16 '14 at 10:58
  • 1
    Reminder: To be accepted. – user103816 Dec 02 '14 at 09:08
  • 2
    The boxed text has a number of typos. Among other things, it ends with the Greek letter beta which, unless I missed it, appears nowhere else. (Incidentally, on my screen at least, the characters $a$ and $\alpha$ are virtually indistinguishable.) – Barry Cipra Dec 08 '14 at 19:40
  • @BarryCipra I've corrected the typos. – user103816 Dec 09 '14 at 06:10

6 Answers6

3

The proof boils down to a little lemma:

If $\gcd(a,b)=1$ and $a\mid bc$, then $a\mid c$.

Here's how it applies:

$$\begin{align} {a\over b}={a'\over b'}&\implies ab'=ba'\\ &\implies a\mid ba'\\ &\implies a\mid a'\qquad\text{(by the lemma)}\\ &\implies a'=an\\ &\implies ab'=ban\\ &\implies b'=bn \end{align}$$

One way to prove the lemma is by invoking the theorem that if $\gcd(a,b)=1$, then $am+bn=1$ for some integers $m$ and $n$. Combining this with $bc=ak$ (based on the assumption $a\mid bc$), we have

$$\begin{align} am+bn=1&\implies amc+bnc=c\\ &\implies amc+nak=c\\ &\implies a(mc+nk)=c\\ &\implies a\mid c \end{align}$$

Added 12/9/14 (in response to OP's edits): Version 1 looks fine to me (except the $b_i$'s should be $q_i$'s, or vice versa), but Version 2, I'd say, makes too liberal a use of Euclid's lemma, which lets you say $a\mid a'b$ and $a\not\mid b$ implies $a\mid a'$ only if $a$ is prime. What you need to say in that proof is that $a\mid a'b$ and $(a,b)=1$ implies $a\mid a'$. The hypothesis $(a,b)=1$ is much stronger than $a\not\mid b$. Basically a correct version of Version 2 amounts to the proof in my original answer above.

Barry Cipra
  • 79,832
2

$a'=ma+r, b'=nb +s\implies \dfrac{a'}{b'}=\dfrac{ma+r}{nb+s}$

$$\begin{align} \dfrac{a}{b}= \dfrac{ma+r}{nb+s} & \implies a(nb+s)=b(ma+r)\\ & \implies a\mid (ma+r)\land b\mid (nb+s) \\ & \implies r=s=0 \\ & \implies a'=ma, b'=nb \\ & \implies\dfrac{a}{b}= \dfrac{ma}{nb}\\ & \implies m=n\end{align}$$

  • How would we justify that $a'>a$ and $b'>b$? 2. You shouldn't be saying $r=s=0$, rather $r=ka$ and $s=k'b$, so the remainders have to be 0 and hence a|a' and b|b'. (+1)
  • – user103816 Dec 09 '14 at 12:09
  • I don't understand the second part of your comment. We can say that $r=s=0$ because of the inequalities $0\leq r <a$ and $0\leq s<b$ by the Division Algorithm. And for the first part of your comment I would say that since $a,b,a',b,\in \mathbb{N}$ if $a'>a$ and $b<b'$ then we get $a'b>ab'$ and similarly for other cases. –  Dec 10 '14 at 04:10
  • How about $a'<a$ and $b'<b$. This require different justification. – user103816 Dec 10 '14 at 10:50
  • @user31782: Is there still any doubt? –  Dec 11 '14 at 05:05
  • If I get it correctly then the case a′<a and b′<b is rejected because we reach at $a'=km'a'+kr'$. – user103816 Dec 11 '14 at 05:15
  • Sorry, but I don't get how you obtained the expression. The crux of the argument is that either $(a'<a) \land (b'<b)$ or $(a'>a) \land (b'>b)$ holds so without loss of generality we can assume any one. –  Dec 11 '14 at 05:18
  • Not at all $a/b$ is in its lowest terms and $a'/b'$ is not. If we reach at a=na' and b=nb' then that would be straight forward incorrect. – user103816 Dec 11 '14 at 05:20
  • We first get the inequalities and then apply the argument. –  Dec 11 '14 at 05:23
  • @user31782: So, what's the difficulty now? –  Dec 11 '14 at 05:25
  • $a'=Nm'a'+Nr'$ --- this is the difficulty. a' cannot be greater than some integer(+) multiple of itself. – user103816 Dec 11 '14 at 05:27
  • [Edited] I used Euclid's lemma and reached at $(m′a′+r′)|a′$ – user103816 Dec 11 '14 at 05:30
  • @user31782: Oh I now get it. One of my previous comments was wrong. Sorry for that. If $a'<a$ and $b'<b$ then we assume $a=m'a'+r'$ and $b=n'b'+s'$. Is it ok now? –  Dec 11 '14 at 05:32
  • No ok! a'<a and b'<b is not possible because we reach at a contradiction. – user103816 Dec 11 '14 at 05:42
  • Oh sorry again, I missed that you mentioned in your question that $a'>a$ and $b'>b$. Yes you are right then. –  Dec 11 '14 at 05:45
  • Perhaps that was redundant, so I have removed that assumption. – user103816 Dec 11 '14 at 05:50