Update: If this question is of interest, you can also click here.
Update: Using Bill Dubuque's lemma and logic proving Euclid's lemma, we can supply an elementary proof.
To get a contradiction, assume than $p \mid a b$.
Let $S = \{n \in \Bbb N \, | \, p \mid nb \}$. Then $p \in S$ and $a \in S$. Moreover, $S$ is closed under subtraction.
Let $d = \text{min(}S\text{)}$. By the lemma, $d \mid p$, so $d = 1$ or $d = p$.
If $d = 1$, since $d \in S$, it must follow that $p \mid (1 \times b)$, which is absurd since $b \lt p$.
By the lemma, $d \mid a$, so if $d = p$ then $p \mid a$, which is absurd since $a \lt p$.
I've been motivated (see this) to prove the following result using only elementary techniques.
Let $p$ be a prime greater than $2$.
Let $1 \lt a \lt p$
Let $1 \lt b \lt p$
Then
$$\tag 1 p\nmid a b$$
I think that this is as simple as first showing that
$$ \text{For every integer n } \ge 1 \text{ such that } p\nmid n, \; \; p\nmid na$$
and ironing out some details.
Using only the 'first page' of elementary theory of the natural numbers/integers (for example Euclidean division, the construction of $\Bbb Z$, the existence of prime factorizations and that modular arithmetic is well-defined), can this approach work for proving $\text{(1)}$?
Besides answering yes in the comments, a proof would be appreciated (this elementary approach can be exhausting).
No comments:
Post a Comment