Can anyone help me out here? Can't seem to find the right rules of divisibility to show this:
If a∣m and (a+1)∣m, then a(a+1)∣m.
Answer
It is not surprising that you are finding this difficult, because it goes beyond basic divisibility rules -- it rather requires something which is essentially equivalent to the uniqueness of prime factorization. [Edit: Actually this is comment is incorrect -- as Robin Chapman's answer shows, it is possible to prove this using just divisibility rules. In particular it is true in any integral domain.]
I assume a and m are positive integers. The first observation is that a and a+1 are relatively prime: i.e., there is no integer d>1 -- or equivalently, no prime number-- which divides both a and a+1, for then d would have to divide (a+1)−a=1, so d=1.
Now the key step: since a divides m, we may write m=aM for some positive integer M. So a+1 divides aM and is relatively prime to a. I claim that this implies a+1 divides M. Assuming this, we have M=(a+1)N, say, so altogether
m=aM=a(a+1)N, so a(a+1) divides m.
The claim is a special case of:
(Generalized) Euclid's Lemma: Let a,b,c be positive integers. Suppose a divides bc and a is relatively prime to b. Then a divides c.
A formal proof of this requires some work! See for instance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_lemma
In particular, proving this is essentialy as hard as proving the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment