If gcd(p,q,r) = 1
Prove that there is an integer A such that
gcd(p, q+Ar) = 1
Is the following proof good (correct)?
If we assume for the sake of contradiction that gcd(p,q+Ar) >1 ∀A∈Z...(I), then also (by symmetry) gcd(q,r+Ap) >1 ∀A∈Z...(II) and gcd(r,p+Cq) >1 ∀A∈Z...(III). Now since gcd(p,q,r) =gcd(gcd(p,q),r), it will suffice to show that gcd(gcd(p,q),r) >1. For the sake of brevity let g =gcd(p,q), hence p =gp′ and q =gq′ for some relatively prime integers p′,q′. We will assume to the contrary that gcd(g,r) =1, from which (Bezout) there will exist x,y∈Z such that gx+ry =1, or ry =1−gx...(α). Thus, the inequality (I) becomes gcd(gp′,gq′+Ar) >1 ∀A∈Z. Setting A =A′y for some arbitrary integer A′, we get gcd(gp′,gq′+A′ry) >1 ∀A′∈Z, or equivalently (by (α)) gcd(gp′,gq′+A′−A′gx) >1 ∀A′∈Z. So setting A′ =p′ yields (Euclidean Algorithm) gcd(gp′,gq′+p′) >1 ∀A′∈Z. Now, if gcd(g,p′) =1 then the proof is complete, so it will suffice to prove this. Notice that the inequality (II) is equivalent to gcd(gq′,r+q′) >1. (The proof is identical to what has been done previously and the details are omitted.) There are two cases to distinguish. If gcd(g,q′) =1, then by symmetry it will also be possible for gcd(g,p′) =1 to hold (in some other circumstances), and the proof is complete. Otherwise, if gcd(g,q′) >1 then it forces gcd(g,p′) =1 to hold, and the proof is complete. Thus, in both cases the proof is complete. Q.E.D.
I am mainly unsure about the symmetry statements. The first one is explicitly mentioned in brackets ("by symmetry"); the second one arises later on in the proof. So it will be helpful to read the proof if you can, I will really appreciate it.
No comments:
Post a Comment