Talk:Euclid's lemma: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Michael Hardy (I find this proposed proof questionable.) |
imported>Michael Hardy No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: and since gcd(''a'', ''p'') = 1 and ''n'' is an integer, ''b/p'' must also be an integer | : and since gcd(''a'', ''p'') = 1 and ''n'' is an integer, ''b/p'' must also be an integer | ||
I'm afraid you've lost me. How can you draw this conclusion without assuming either Euclid's lemma or uniqueness of prime factorization (the first of which certainly involves circular reasoning and is thus a logical fallacy, and the secdon of which is vulnerable to the same danger since Euclid's lemma is often used for proving uniqueness of | I'm afraid you've lost me. How can you draw this conclusion without assuming either Euclid's lemma or uniqueness of prime factorization (the first of which certainly involves circular reasoning and is thus a logical fallacy, and the secdon of which is vulnerable to the same danger since Euclid's lemma is often used for proving uniqueness of factorazation)? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 20:35, 3 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:37, 3 August 2007
- and since gcd(a, p) = 1 and n is an integer, b/p must also be an integer
I'm afraid you've lost me. How can you draw this conclusion without assuming either Euclid's lemma or uniqueness of prime factorization (the first of which certainly involves circular reasoning and is thus a logical fallacy, and the secdon of which is vulnerable to the same danger since Euclid's lemma is often used for proving uniqueness of factorazation)? Michael Hardy 20:35, 3 August 2007 (CDT)