How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Every common divisor of and divides ; consequently exactly when , , , and every common divisor of and divides — a characterisation that holds at as well
Statement
Let . Every common divisor of and divides (Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor , with the convention , Divisibility in : when for some integer ).
Consequently, for the following are equivalent:
- ;
- , , , and every common divisor of and divides .
This characterisation holds for every pair , the pair included, where it returns the value fixed by convention.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Integers and , and (Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor , with the convention ).
For , is the greatest element of the set of common divisors, so in particular , and ; at , by convention. In both cases (Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor , with the convention ).
Every integer divides (Divisibility in : when for some integer ).
Proof
Suppose and let be a common divisor of and . By [L2] fix with ; then by [L4].
Suppose instead . Then , and every integer, in particular every common divisor , divides .
itself is a common divisor of and : for this is , and for it is . And in both cases.
In both cases every common divisor of and divides ; since the two cases are exhaustive, this is the first assertion.
Claim 1 implies claim 2: if then , and by step 1.3, and every common divisor divides by step 2.1.
Claim 2 implies claim 1: suppose , , , and every common divisor of and divides . Then is a common divisor, so by step 2.1; and is a common divisor by step 1.3, so by hypothesis. Hence by [L5], and since and this reads .
The two claims are therefore equivalent, for every pair including , where step 1.2 and step 1.3 were proved directly from the convention rather than from a maximum.
Remarks
-
This is the statement later pages should cite. "Greatest in the order of " is how was defined, but it is not a property that survives at and it is not what any later argument uses. "Nonnegative, a common divisor, and divisible by every common divisor" is uniform, and it is the definition that generalises beyond .
-
Both halves of claim 2 are needed. Dropping leaves determined only up to sign, since also divides and and is divided by every common divisor (For integers and the following are equivalent: and ; for a unit ; . Being associates is an equivalence relation whose class of is ). Dropping "every common divisor divides " leaves every nonnegative common divisor a candidate.
Depends on
- Bézout's identity: for integers $a, b$ not both zero, $\gcd(a,b)$ is the least positive element of $\{\, ax + by : x, y \in \mathbb{Z} \,\}$; in particular $ax + by = \gcd(a,b)$ has an integer solution
- Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor $\gcd(a,b)$, with the convention $\gcd(0,0) := 0$
- Divisibility in $\mathbb{Z}$: $d \mid a$ when $a = dq$ for some integer $q$
- Divisibility is reflexive and transitive on $\mathbb{Z}$, and is linear: if $d \mid a$ and $d \mid b$ then $d \mid ax + by$ for all integers $x, y$; also $d \mid a$ implies $d \mid ac$, $-d \mid a$ and $d \mid -a$
- For integers $a$ and $b$ the following are equivalent: $a \mid b$ and $b \mid a$; $b = ua$ for a unit $u$; $|a| = |b|$. Being associates is an equivalence relation whose class of $a$ is $\{a, -a\}$
- The absolute value $|a|$ of an integer
- Absolute value in $\mathbb{Z}$: $|a| \ge 0$; $|a| = 0$ exactly when $a = 0$; $|-a| = |a|$; $|ab| = |a|\,|b|$; $-|a| \le a \le |a|$; and $|a| \le c$ exactly when $-c \le a \le c$
Used by
- 6 ∣ 4 · 9 while 6 ∤ 4 and 6 ∤ 9: dividing a product does not force dividing a factor, and the coprimality hypothesis is what fails Counterexample
- The common divisors of (0,0) are all of ℤ and have no greatest element in the order of ℤ, so gcd(0,0) cannot be defined as a maximum and is fixed by convention Counterexample
- 12ℤ + 18ℤ = 6ℤ and 12ℤ ∩ 18ℤ = 36ℤ, the arithmetic of gcd and lcm read off the subgroups of (ℤ,+) Example
- 360 = 2³ · 3² · 5 and 84 = 2² · 3 · 7, with gcd(360,84) = 12 and lcm(360,84) = 2520 read off the exponents Example
- ax + by = c has an integer solution exactly when gcd(a,b) ∣ c: 6x + 15y = 9 is solvable and 6x + 15y = 7 is not Example
- gcd at the boundary: gcd(a,0) = |a|, gcd(0,0) = 0, and the convention gcd(0,0) = 0 is exactly what makes gcd(ca,cb) = |c|gcd(a,b) true at c = 0 Example
- FALSE: For all integers a and b, gcd(a,b) · lcm(a,b) = ab False statement
- a and b are coprime if and only if ax + by = 1 for some integers x, y; and in that case the only common divisors of a and b are 1 and -1 Lemma
- Content is the positive common divisor of the coefficients divisible by every common divisor Lemma
- For a prime p and any integer a, gcd(p,a) is p when p ∣ a and 1 otherwise; so p ∤ a makes p and a coprime Lemma
- gcd(ca, cb) = |c| gcd(a,b) for all integers a, b, c, the identity holding at c = 0 and at (a,b) = (0,0) as well Lemma
- For positive integers a and b and every prime p: vₚ(gcd(a,b)) = min{vₚ(a), vₚ(b)} and vₚ(lcm(a,b)) = max{vₚ(a), vₚ(b)}; so the exponent-wise greatest common divisor is the gcd of the divisibility page and not a second notion Theorem
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 64 results over 21 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Greatest common divisor (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)