A few days ago we made use of Bézout’s Identity, which states that if and
have a greatest common divisor
, then there exist integers
and
such that
. For completeness, let’s prove it.
Consider the set of all linear combinations of and
, that is,
,
and suppose is the smallest positive integer in this set. For example, if
and
, then you can check that, for example,
, and
, and
are all in this set, as is, for example,
, but the smallest positive integer you can get is
. We will prove that in fact,
is the greatest common divisor of
and
.
Consider dividing by
. This will result in some remainder
such that
. I claim the remainder is also of the form
for some integers
and
: note that
is of this form, and
is of this form by definition, and we get the remainder by subtracting some number of copies of
from
. Subtracting two numbers of the form
works by subtracting coefficients, yielding another number of the same form again. But
is supposed to be the smallest positive number of this form, and
is less than
—which means
has to be zero, that is,
evenly divides
. The same argument shows that
evenly divides
as well. So
is a common divisor of
and
.
To see that is the greatest common divisor, suppose
also divides
and
. Then since
, we can see that
must divide
as well—so it must be less than or equal to
.
Voila! This proof doesn’t show us how to actually compute some appropriate and
given
and
—that can be done using the extended Euclidean algorithm; perhaps I’ll write about that some other time. But this proof will do for today.
For the remainder of the month, as suggested by commented janhrcek, we’ll prove the thing I hinted at in an earlier post: namely, that the order of any group element is always a divisor of the order of the group. This is a really cool proof that hints at some much deeper group theory.
When showing that
is a common divisor, you state “…that is,
evenly divides
.” The next sentence states “…shows that
evenly divided
as well.” Shouldn’t the second be
?
Yup, good catch, thanks! Fixed now.