Re: GCD(0,0)
- From: Marc Olschok <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Dec 2005 19:09:32 GMT
Leroy Quet <qqquet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>[...]
> For n = any positive integer, it is known that
>
> GCD(n,n) = n
>
> and
>
> GCD(0,n) = n.
>
> (GCD is Greatest Common Divisor, of course.)
>
> But what is, if there is any defined value,
>
> GCD(0,0)?
>
> It certainly isn't 0 (which would fit the pattern above if
> n=0), is it?
> I would think that infinity would work as well as anything.
>
> Or is GCD(0,0) simply undefined, like 0/0?
That is a common misconception about the meaning of "greatest"
in the phrase "_greatest_ common divisor".
The actual order on the natural numbers which is meant here, is
not the usual one but the _divisibility_ order |.
you can check easily that is reflexive and transitive
( i.e., m|m and l|m & m|n ==> l|n ). It is also
antisymmetric as long as only natural numbers are considered.
If you unfold the definition if GCD you will see, that GCD(m,n)
is just the infimum of m and n with respect to order |.
(also LCM(m,n) is the supremum of m an m).
Hence GCD(m,m)=m and in particular GCD(0,0).
If you consider all integers, the relation | is not antisymmetric
any more. But you still have the notion of "a greatest element",
and _a_ GCD(i,k) is _a_ greatest element of the set of common divisors
of i and k.
That the _usual_ order on the naturals is not really important for
the concept of GCD becomes clear when more general Rings (i.e. k[X])
are considered.
Marc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCD(0,0)
- From: Marc Olschok
- Re: GCD(0,0)
- References:
- GCD(0,0)
- From: Leroy Quet
- GCD(0,0)
- Prev by Date: Re: x^2-1 = 0 mod p^k
- Next by Date: number theory
- Previous by thread: Re: GCD(0,0)
- Next by thread: Re: GCD(0,0)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|