The greatest common divisor is the largest positive integer dividing both and . To prove Bezout identity without assuming unique factorization, let be the least positive member of
This set has positive members, for example , so well-ordering principle supplies . Divide by using Euclidean division: , . The remainder is another integer linear combination of . Minimality forces , so . The same argument gives . Every common divisor divides every integer linear combination, hence divides . Therefore is the greatest common divisor, and
This argument also proves that every common divisor divides the greatest common divisor.
The positive integers with the stated product-divisibility property are
The case is immediate. If is prime and , its only possible common positive divisor with is one. By Bezout identity, . Multiplying by shows that implies . This proves Euclid lemma directly. Conversely, if is not prime, it has a divisor with . Put ; then . Although , neither nor is divisible by , disproving the property for a composite .
Finally, suppose for four distinct primes. Then , so Euclid lemma gives or . A prime has no positive divisor other than one and itself, so this would mean or , a contradiction. Products of these two disjoint pairs cannot be equal. No form of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic was used: the required prime-divisibility fact was proved from Bezout identity.
Yes. A concrete example of nonunique factorization in a congruence submonoid is
The four factors are distinct and each is congruent to one modulo ten. The primes can be checked by trial division by two and three. Their elementary prime decompositions are
For any one of these products , where are the indicated distinct primes, its positive divisors are . This divisor assertion does not require unique factorization: if and , then by the Euclid lemma proved in (a), so and is either one or . If , write and obtain , giving or .
None of is congruent to one modulo ten. Consequently no listed product has a proper nonunit divisor in . Thus each is an irreducible element of a commutative monoid, and the displayed equality proves the claim. Ordinary prime decompositions and irreducibility relative to the smaller commutative monoid are different notions.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.