Difference between revisions of "Bézout's Identity"
Etmetalakret (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''Bezout's Lemma''' states that if <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> are nonzero integers and <math>g = \gcd(x,y)</math>, then there exist integers <math>\alpha</...") |
(→Proof) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | ''' | + | '''Bézout's Identity''' states that if <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> are nonzero [[Integer|integers]] and <math>g = \gcd(x,y)</math>, then there exist integers <math>\alpha</math> and <math>\beta</math> such that <math>x\alpha+y\beta=g</math>. In other words, there exists a linear combination of <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> equal to <math>g</math>. |
Furthermore, <math>g</math> is the smallest positive integer that can be expressed in this form, i.e. <math>g = \min\{x\alpha+y\beta|\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb Z, x\alpha+y\beta > 0\}</math>. | Furthermore, <math>g</math> is the smallest positive integer that can be expressed in this form, i.e. <math>g = \min\{x\alpha+y\beta|\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb Z, x\alpha+y\beta > 0\}</math>. | ||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Let <math>x = gx_1</math>, <math>y = gy_1</math>, and notice that <math>\gcd(x_1,y_1) = 1</math>. | Let <math>x = gx_1</math>, <math>y = gy_1</math>, and notice that <math>\gcd(x_1,y_1) = 1</math>. | ||
− | Since <math>\gcd(x_1,y_1)=1</math>, <math>\text{lcm}(x_1,y_1)=x_1y_1</math>. So <math>\alpha=y_1</math> is smallest positive <math>\alpha</math> for which <math>x_1\alpha\equiv 0\pmod{ | + | Since <math>\gcd(x_1,y_1)=1</math>, <math>\text{lcm}(x_1,y_1)=x_1y_1</math>. So <math>\alpha=y_1</math> is smallest positive <math>\alpha</math> for which <math>x_1\alpha\equiv 0\pmod{y_1}</math>. Now if for all distinct <math>a,b \in\mathbb{Z}</math> satisfying <math>0\le a,b<y_1</math> we have <math>x_1a\not\equiv x_1b\pmod{y_1}</math>, then, by the [[Pigeonhole Principle]], we can express every residue of <math>y_1</math> as a multiple of <math>x_1</math>. In particular, there is some positive <math>\alpha<y_1</math> for which <math>x_1\alpha\equiv 1\pmod{y_1}</math>. Assume for contradiction that <math>x_1a\equiv x_1b\pmod{y_1}</math>, and WLOG let <math>b>a</math>. Then, <math>x_1(b-a)\equiv 0\pmod {y_1}</math>, and so as we saw above this means <math>b-a\ge y_1</math> but this is impossible since <math>0\le a,b<y_1</math>. Thus there exists an <math>\alpha</math> such that <math>x_1\alpha\equiv 1\pmod{y_1}</math>. |
Therefore <math>y_1|(x_1\alpha-1)</math>, and so there exists an integer <math>\beta</math> such that <math>x_1\alpha - 1 = y_1\beta</math>, and so <math>x_1\alpha + y_1\beta = 1</math>. Now multiplying through by <math>g</math> gives, <math>gx_1\alpha + gy_1\beta = g</math>, or <math>x\alpha+y\beta = g</math>. | Therefore <math>y_1|(x_1\alpha-1)</math>, and so there exists an integer <math>\beta</math> such that <math>x_1\alpha - 1 = y_1\beta</math>, and so <math>x_1\alpha + y_1\beta = 1</math>. Now multiplying through by <math>g</math> gives, <math>gx_1\alpha + gy_1\beta = g</math>, or <math>x\alpha+y\beta = g</math>. | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Now to prove <math>g</math> is minimum, consider any positive integer <math>g' = x\alpha'+y\beta'</math>. As <math>g|x,y</math> we get <math>g|x\alpha'+y\beta' = g'</math>, and as <math>g</math> and <math>g'</math> are both positive integers this gives <math>g\le g'</math>. So <math>g</math> is indeed the minimum. | Now to prove <math>g</math> is minimum, consider any positive integer <math>g' = x\alpha'+y\beta'</math>. As <math>g|x,y</math> we get <math>g|x\alpha'+y\beta' = g'</math>, and as <math>g</math> and <math>g'</math> are both positive integers this gives <math>g\le g'</math>. So <math>g</math> is indeed the minimum. | ||
− | ==Generalization/Extension of | + | ==Generalization/Extension of Bézout's Identity== |
Let <math>a_1, a_2,..., a_m</math> be positive integers. Then there exists integers <math>x_1, x_2, ..., x_m</math> such that | Let <math>a_1, a_2,..., a_m</math> be positive integers. Then there exists integers <math>x_1, x_2, ..., x_m</math> such that | ||
<cmath>\sum_{i=1}^{m} a_ix_i = \gcd(a_1, a_2, ..., a_m)</cmath> Also, <math>\gcd(a_1, a_2, ..., a_m)</math> is the least positive integer satisfying this property. | <cmath>\sum_{i=1}^{m} a_ix_i = \gcd(a_1, a_2, ..., a_m)</cmath> Also, <math>\gcd(a_1, a_2, ..., a_m)</math> is the least positive integer satisfying this property. |
Latest revision as of 01:41, 1 September 2024
Bézout's Identity states that if and are nonzero integers and , then there exist integers and such that . In other words, there exists a linear combination of and equal to .
Furthermore, is the smallest positive integer that can be expressed in this form, i.e. . In particular, if and are relatively prime then there are integers and for which .
Proof
Let , , and notice that .
Since , . So is smallest positive for which . Now if for all distinct satisfying we have , then, by the Pigeonhole Principle, we can express every residue of as a multiple of . In particular, there is some positive for which . Assume for contradiction that , and WLOG let . Then, , and so as we saw above this means but this is impossible since . Thus there exists an such that .
Therefore , and so there exists an integer such that , and so . Now multiplying through by gives, , or .
Thus there does exist integers and such that .
Now to prove is minimum, consider any positive integer . As we get , and as and are both positive integers this gives . So is indeed the minimum.
Generalization/Extension of Bézout's Identity
Let be positive integers. Then there exists integers such that Also, is the least positive integer satisfying this property.
Proof
Consider the set . Obviously, . Thus, because all the elements of are positive, by the Well Ordering Principle, there exists a minimal element . So
if and then But by the Division Algorithm:
But so this would imply that which contradicts the assumption that is the minimal element in . Thus, hence, . But this would imply that for because . Now, because for we have that . But then we also have that . Thus, we have that