Difference between revisions of "Bezout's Lemma"
Qwertysri987 (talk | contribs) (→Generalization/Extension of Bezout's Lemma) |
Qwertysri987 (talk | contribs) m (→Generalization/Extension of Bezout's Lemma) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Generalization/Extension of Bezout's Lemma== | ==Generalization/Extension of Bezout's Lemma== | ||
− | Let <math>a_1, a_2,..., a_m</math> be | + | 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. | ||
Revision as of 20:53, 8 May 2020
Bezout's Lemma 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 .
Contents
Proof
Let , , and notice that .
Since , . So is smallest positive for which . Now if for all integers , we have that , then one of those integers must be 1 from the Pigeonhole Principle. 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 Bezout's Lemma
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
~qwertysri987
Generalization to Principal Ideal Domains
Bezout's Lemma can be generalized to principal ideal domains.
Let be a principal ideal domain, and consider any . Let . Then there exist elements for which . Furthermore, is the minimal such element (under divisibility), i.e. if then .
Note that this statement is indeed a generalization of the previous statement, as the ring of integers, is a principal ideal domain.
Proof
Consider the ideal . As is a principal ideal domain, must be principle, that is it must be generated by a single element, say . Now from the definition of , there must exist such that . We now claim that .
First we prove the following simple fact: if , then . To see this, note that if , then there must be some such that . But now by definition we have .
Now from this, as , we get that . Furthermore, consider any with . We clearly have that . So indeed .
Now we shall prove minimality. Let . Then as , we have , as desired.
See also
This article is a stub. Help us out by expanding it.