Divisibility and factorization · Definition

Euclid's lemma

elementary number theorydivisibility and factorization

Before you start you need to know

This result extends to products of several factors the idea that a prime cannot be split between two numbers without dividing one of them. It is proved using Bézout's identity.

Definition

If a prime \(p\) divides the product \(ab\), then \(p\) divides \(a\) or \(b\). It is the key property that distinguishes primes from composite numbers.

\[p \mid ab \Rightarrow p \mid a \ \lor\ p \mid b\]

If \(p\) is prime and \(p \nmid a\), then \(\gcd(p,a)=1\). By Bézout's identity there are integers \(x,y\) with \(px+ay=1\). Multiplying by \(b\) gives \(pbx+aby=b\); since \(p \mid ab\), \(p\) divides \(aby\) and also \(pbx\), so \(p\) divides \(b\). By induction, the result holds for products of any number of factors.

Take \(p=5\), \(a=12\), \(b=15\). Since \(5 \mid 180\) with \(180=12\cdot 15\), and \(5\nmid 12\), it must be that \(5 \mid 15\), which is true. This checks the lemma in a concrete case before generalizing it.

A common mistake is applying the lemma to a composite number, for example claiming that \(6 \mid ab\) implies \(6 \mid a\) or \(6 \mid b\). With \(a=2\), \(b=3\) we have \(6 \mid 6\) but \(6 \nmid 2\) and \(6 \nmid 3\). The primality hypothesis is essential.

Think about it

Why must p be prime for the lemma to hold?

Because if p is composite it fails: \(6\) divides \(2\cdot 3\) without dividing \(2\) or \(3\).

Exercises 10

References

  • David M. Burton, Elementary Number Theory, 7th edition, McGraw-Hill, 2011. cap. 2 y 3
  • Ivan Niven, Herbert S. Zuckerman, Hugh L. Montgomery, An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, 5th edition, Wiley, 1991. cap. 1