Show that for nonzero integers m and n, g.c.d (m,n) is the largest natural number dividing m and n. Please help.
thats precicely the definition of gcd are you really after proving a definition ?
I am new in the field, so that I am not familiar with the terminology. I need step by step how to solve it. Please.
Is this a homework problem ?
yes
what definitions do we get to use (because I actually use that as a definition above)
I don't know what "the largest natural number dividing m and n" mean
oh pretend we have m=dk and n=dl if d is the largest dividing number of m and n then gcd(m,n)=gcd(dk,dl)=d if gcd(k,l)=1
Obviously, if m,n are not relative prime, it has a gcd
just nitpicking on your earlier statement : ``` Obviously, if m,n are not relative prime, it has a gcd ``` if m,n are relatively prime, the gcd is `1` we never say "gcd is not there"
and by definition of gcd, we can find it out by the steps like let m = an + a1 where 0<= a1<a and so on.... I know how to go the steps, but feel not good if the question is just about "memorize" the step how to prove the definition
do you want to know how to find gcd given two numbers ?
I know how to find it,@rational by both ways, arithmetic and matrix.
then whats the question exactly ?
Let gcd(m,n)=d. Then this means d|m and d|n. This means dk=m and da=n for integers k and a. So gcd(m,n)=d only iff gcd(k,a)=1. Like this is the only way I can better explain the definition above.
And I don't mean to be repetitive. This trying to state it better.
oops, hihihi... I am so sorry. It's not the correct problem on my assignment. But I would like to know how to do it. Again, I am sorry.
@myininaya I see !! thank you :)
Is this a definition in your class? (if so, you can't prove definitions.) And if it isn't, what definition are you using for gcd?
No, it is a theorem.
Let me close this post and ... ask a new one. Please, be there to help
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!