Let s and t be two relatively prime odd numbers. We want to know the d=gcd(s−t,s+t). Let d=2lm thus s−t=2lmk1 and s+t=2lmk2 for k1 and k2 odd numbers and gcd(k1,k2)=1. Summing and subtracting both sides of two equality-es and diving by 2 results in s=2lm(k1+k2)2 and t=2lm(k2−k1)2 in which (k2±k1)2 are integers as both k1 and k2 are odd numbers and because s and t are relatively prime implies l=0 which is not possible since both s−t and s+t are even so must l≥1 !! Contradiction?
A rewritten version of this same question, for the author's benefit:
Let s and t be two distinct relatively prime odd numbers.
We want to compute d=gcd(s−t,s+t). Note that s−t and s+t are both nonzero because s and t are distinct.
Let d=2ℓm, where m is odd. Then since s−t and s+t are both multiples of d, we have
s−t=2ℓmk1ands+t=2ℓmk2
where k1 and k2 are both odd. Furthermore, gcd(k1,k2)=1, for if it were some other number u>1, then ud would divide both s+t and s−t, contradicting the fact that d is their greatest common divisor.
Finally, since both s−t and s+t are even and nonzero, we must have ℓ≥1, which we'll use shortly.
Summing and subtracting both sides of these two equalities and dividing by 2 gives
s=2ℓm(k1+k2)2 andt=2ℓm(k2−k1)2
Note that because k1 and k2 are both odd, their sum and difference are both even, hence
(k2±k1)2 are both integers.
Now s and t are relatively prime (given), so ℓ must be zero (otherwise 2ℓ would divide both, and the gcd could not be 1).
On the other hand, we showed above that ℓ≥1. That's a contradiction.
=====
Now there's definitely something screwy in the "proof" above, because Jyrki's example shows that the gcd is actually 2. But you'll have a lot easier time finding the error now that the "proof" is actually written clearly and coherently.
Answer
k1 and k2 don't have to be odd numbers, only one of them has to be. If s and t are both odd, s+t and s−t are both even, so you know that d is also even.
No comments:
Post a Comment