Divisors of $-1$ are only $1$ and $-1$?












1














I'm working through a discrete math textbook and I've come across this question with answer:



Prove that the only divisors of $−1$ are $−1$ and $1$.



Answer:



We established that $1$ divides any number; hence, it divides $−1$, and any nonzero number divides itself. Thus, $1$ and $−1$ are divisors of $−1$. To show that these are the only ones, we take $d$, a positive divisor of $−1$. Thus, $dk = −1$ for some integer $k$, and $(−1)dk = d(−k) = (−1)(−1) = 1$; hence, $dmid 1$, and the only divisors of $1$ are $1$ and $−1$. Hence, $d = 1$ or $d = −1$.



I understand everything stated in the answer except for the part: $(-1)dk = d(-k) = (-1)(-1) = 1$



Perhaps someone could help me understand where the $(-1)dk$ comes from? And how we go from $d(-k)$ to $(-1)(-1)$?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • The term $(-1)$ in $(-1)dk$ was just put there to make it $=1$. The intermediate step $(-1)(-1)$ seems unnecessary and confusing.
    – herb steinberg
    Nov 25 '18 at 22:38
















1














I'm working through a discrete math textbook and I've come across this question with answer:



Prove that the only divisors of $−1$ are $−1$ and $1$.



Answer:



We established that $1$ divides any number; hence, it divides $−1$, and any nonzero number divides itself. Thus, $1$ and $−1$ are divisors of $−1$. To show that these are the only ones, we take $d$, a positive divisor of $−1$. Thus, $dk = −1$ for some integer $k$, and $(−1)dk = d(−k) = (−1)(−1) = 1$; hence, $dmid 1$, and the only divisors of $1$ are $1$ and $−1$. Hence, $d = 1$ or $d = −1$.



I understand everything stated in the answer except for the part: $(-1)dk = d(-k) = (-1)(-1) = 1$



Perhaps someone could help me understand where the $(-1)dk$ comes from? And how we go from $d(-k)$ to $(-1)(-1)$?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • The term $(-1)$ in $(-1)dk$ was just put there to make it $=1$. The intermediate step $(-1)(-1)$ seems unnecessary and confusing.
    – herb steinberg
    Nov 25 '18 at 22:38














1












1








1


0





I'm working through a discrete math textbook and I've come across this question with answer:



Prove that the only divisors of $−1$ are $−1$ and $1$.



Answer:



We established that $1$ divides any number; hence, it divides $−1$, and any nonzero number divides itself. Thus, $1$ and $−1$ are divisors of $−1$. To show that these are the only ones, we take $d$, a positive divisor of $−1$. Thus, $dk = −1$ for some integer $k$, and $(−1)dk = d(−k) = (−1)(−1) = 1$; hence, $dmid 1$, and the only divisors of $1$ are $1$ and $−1$. Hence, $d = 1$ or $d = −1$.



I understand everything stated in the answer except for the part: $(-1)dk = d(-k) = (-1)(-1) = 1$



Perhaps someone could help me understand where the $(-1)dk$ comes from? And how we go from $d(-k)$ to $(-1)(-1)$?










share|cite|improve this question















I'm working through a discrete math textbook and I've come across this question with answer:



Prove that the only divisors of $−1$ are $−1$ and $1$.



Answer:



We established that $1$ divides any number; hence, it divides $−1$, and any nonzero number divides itself. Thus, $1$ and $−1$ are divisors of $−1$. To show that these are the only ones, we take $d$, a positive divisor of $−1$. Thus, $dk = −1$ for some integer $k$, and $(−1)dk = d(−k) = (−1)(−1) = 1$; hence, $dmid 1$, and the only divisors of $1$ are $1$ and $−1$. Hence, $d = 1$ or $d = −1$.



I understand everything stated in the answer except for the part: $(-1)dk = d(-k) = (-1)(-1) = 1$



Perhaps someone could help me understand where the $(-1)dk$ comes from? And how we go from $d(-k)$ to $(-1)(-1)$?







discrete-mathematics






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 26 '18 at 0:03









amWhy

192k28224439




192k28224439










asked Nov 25 '18 at 22:32









metisMusings

161




161












  • The term $(-1)$ in $(-1)dk$ was just put there to make it $=1$. The intermediate step $(-1)(-1)$ seems unnecessary and confusing.
    – herb steinberg
    Nov 25 '18 at 22:38


















  • The term $(-1)$ in $(-1)dk$ was just put there to make it $=1$. The intermediate step $(-1)(-1)$ seems unnecessary and confusing.
    – herb steinberg
    Nov 25 '18 at 22:38
















The term $(-1)$ in $(-1)dk$ was just put there to make it $=1$. The intermediate step $(-1)(-1)$ seems unnecessary and confusing.
– herb steinberg
Nov 25 '18 at 22:38




The term $(-1)$ in $(-1)dk$ was just put there to make it $=1$. The intermediate step $(-1)(-1)$ seems unnecessary and confusing.
– herb steinberg
Nov 25 '18 at 22:38










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2














The $(-1)dk$ bit is basically use trying to establish that, whatever $d$ is, it divides $1$ - which, since the only divisor of $1$ is itself, means $d=1$. By establishing $d=1$, then we establish that no other divisors to $-1$ exist, other than $1$ and $-1$ - this is because we assumed that $d$ was some other, arbitrary divisor, but show that such an assumption means $d=1$ (an analogous argument can probably show that $d=-1$ under a slightly different construction).



So... from the fact that $d$ divides $-1$, we know there exists some integer $k$ such that $dk = -1$.



So, we begin with just considering $(-1)dk$, and we want to see where that takes us.



As multiplication is commutative, $(-1)dk = d(-1)k$.



$(-1)k = -k$, obviously, so $(-1)dk = d(-1)k = d(-k)$.



However, recall that, since $d|-1 ;; Rightarrow ;; dk = -1$, we also have $(-1)dk = (-1)(-1)$.



Thus, $d(-k) = (-1)(-1)$.



We know $(-1)(-1) = 1$, obviously, so we thus have $d(-k)=1$.



$d$ and $k$ by assumption are both integers (and thus $-k$ is too). Thus, $d|1$ and $-k|1$.



Since $d$ divides $1$, $d$ is a factor of $1$ by definition. However, the only factors of $1$ are ... just $1$ itself. Thus, $d=1$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you!! I'm actually having some of the most trouble in proofs on these manipulations of rather simple algebra, I guess because it's so ingrained to just be true.
    – metisMusings
    Nov 26 '18 at 19:22



















1














We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is



$$dk=-1$$



and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain



$$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$






share|cite|improve this answer





























    0














    Presumably the book has already proved or taken as axioms:





    • $(ab)c=a(bc)$ and you can then write the result as $abc$, called associativity of multiplication


    • $ab=ba$, call commutativity of multiplication

    • $(-1)c=-c$

    • $(-1)(-1)=1$

    • the only divisors of $1$ are $1$ and $−1$, or at least that the only positive divisor of $1$ is $1$


    Then using the first three points you have $(-1)dk = ((-1)d)k=(d(-1))k = d((-1)k)=d(-k) $



    while, since $dk=-1$, you have $(-1)dk=(-1)(-1)=1$ from the fourth point



    together implying $d(-k)=1$, and since $d$ is assumed to be positive it must be $1$ as the only positive divisor of $1$, leading to the conclusion that $-k=1$ and so $(-1)(-k)=(-1)1$, i.e. $k=-1$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3013506%2fdivisors-of-1-are-only-1-and-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2














      The $(-1)dk$ bit is basically use trying to establish that, whatever $d$ is, it divides $1$ - which, since the only divisor of $1$ is itself, means $d=1$. By establishing $d=1$, then we establish that no other divisors to $-1$ exist, other than $1$ and $-1$ - this is because we assumed that $d$ was some other, arbitrary divisor, but show that such an assumption means $d=1$ (an analogous argument can probably show that $d=-1$ under a slightly different construction).



      So... from the fact that $d$ divides $-1$, we know there exists some integer $k$ such that $dk = -1$.



      So, we begin with just considering $(-1)dk$, and we want to see where that takes us.



      As multiplication is commutative, $(-1)dk = d(-1)k$.



      $(-1)k = -k$, obviously, so $(-1)dk = d(-1)k = d(-k)$.



      However, recall that, since $d|-1 ;; Rightarrow ;; dk = -1$, we also have $(-1)dk = (-1)(-1)$.



      Thus, $d(-k) = (-1)(-1)$.



      We know $(-1)(-1) = 1$, obviously, so we thus have $d(-k)=1$.



      $d$ and $k$ by assumption are both integers (and thus $-k$ is too). Thus, $d|1$ and $-k|1$.



      Since $d$ divides $1$, $d$ is a factor of $1$ by definition. However, the only factors of $1$ are ... just $1$ itself. Thus, $d=1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • Thank you!! I'm actually having some of the most trouble in proofs on these manipulations of rather simple algebra, I guess because it's so ingrained to just be true.
        – metisMusings
        Nov 26 '18 at 19:22
















      2














      The $(-1)dk$ bit is basically use trying to establish that, whatever $d$ is, it divides $1$ - which, since the only divisor of $1$ is itself, means $d=1$. By establishing $d=1$, then we establish that no other divisors to $-1$ exist, other than $1$ and $-1$ - this is because we assumed that $d$ was some other, arbitrary divisor, but show that such an assumption means $d=1$ (an analogous argument can probably show that $d=-1$ under a slightly different construction).



      So... from the fact that $d$ divides $-1$, we know there exists some integer $k$ such that $dk = -1$.



      So, we begin with just considering $(-1)dk$, and we want to see where that takes us.



      As multiplication is commutative, $(-1)dk = d(-1)k$.



      $(-1)k = -k$, obviously, so $(-1)dk = d(-1)k = d(-k)$.



      However, recall that, since $d|-1 ;; Rightarrow ;; dk = -1$, we also have $(-1)dk = (-1)(-1)$.



      Thus, $d(-k) = (-1)(-1)$.



      We know $(-1)(-1) = 1$, obviously, so we thus have $d(-k)=1$.



      $d$ and $k$ by assumption are both integers (and thus $-k$ is too). Thus, $d|1$ and $-k|1$.



      Since $d$ divides $1$, $d$ is a factor of $1$ by definition. However, the only factors of $1$ are ... just $1$ itself. Thus, $d=1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • Thank you!! I'm actually having some of the most trouble in proofs on these manipulations of rather simple algebra, I guess because it's so ingrained to just be true.
        – metisMusings
        Nov 26 '18 at 19:22














      2












      2








      2






      The $(-1)dk$ bit is basically use trying to establish that, whatever $d$ is, it divides $1$ - which, since the only divisor of $1$ is itself, means $d=1$. By establishing $d=1$, then we establish that no other divisors to $-1$ exist, other than $1$ and $-1$ - this is because we assumed that $d$ was some other, arbitrary divisor, but show that such an assumption means $d=1$ (an analogous argument can probably show that $d=-1$ under a slightly different construction).



      So... from the fact that $d$ divides $-1$, we know there exists some integer $k$ such that $dk = -1$.



      So, we begin with just considering $(-1)dk$, and we want to see where that takes us.



      As multiplication is commutative, $(-1)dk = d(-1)k$.



      $(-1)k = -k$, obviously, so $(-1)dk = d(-1)k = d(-k)$.



      However, recall that, since $d|-1 ;; Rightarrow ;; dk = -1$, we also have $(-1)dk = (-1)(-1)$.



      Thus, $d(-k) = (-1)(-1)$.



      We know $(-1)(-1) = 1$, obviously, so we thus have $d(-k)=1$.



      $d$ and $k$ by assumption are both integers (and thus $-k$ is too). Thus, $d|1$ and $-k|1$.



      Since $d$ divides $1$, $d$ is a factor of $1$ by definition. However, the only factors of $1$ are ... just $1$ itself. Thus, $d=1$.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      The $(-1)dk$ bit is basically use trying to establish that, whatever $d$ is, it divides $1$ - which, since the only divisor of $1$ is itself, means $d=1$. By establishing $d=1$, then we establish that no other divisors to $-1$ exist, other than $1$ and $-1$ - this is because we assumed that $d$ was some other, arbitrary divisor, but show that such an assumption means $d=1$ (an analogous argument can probably show that $d=-1$ under a slightly different construction).



      So... from the fact that $d$ divides $-1$, we know there exists some integer $k$ such that $dk = -1$.



      So, we begin with just considering $(-1)dk$, and we want to see where that takes us.



      As multiplication is commutative, $(-1)dk = d(-1)k$.



      $(-1)k = -k$, obviously, so $(-1)dk = d(-1)k = d(-k)$.



      However, recall that, since $d|-1 ;; Rightarrow ;; dk = -1$, we also have $(-1)dk = (-1)(-1)$.



      Thus, $d(-k) = (-1)(-1)$.



      We know $(-1)(-1) = 1$, obviously, so we thus have $d(-k)=1$.



      $d$ and $k$ by assumption are both integers (and thus $-k$ is too). Thus, $d|1$ and $-k|1$.



      Since $d$ divides $1$, $d$ is a factor of $1$ by definition. However, the only factors of $1$ are ... just $1$ itself. Thus, $d=1$.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Nov 25 '18 at 22:41









      Eevee Trainer

      4,6901634




      4,6901634












      • Thank you!! I'm actually having some of the most trouble in proofs on these manipulations of rather simple algebra, I guess because it's so ingrained to just be true.
        – metisMusings
        Nov 26 '18 at 19:22


















      • Thank you!! I'm actually having some of the most trouble in proofs on these manipulations of rather simple algebra, I guess because it's so ingrained to just be true.
        – metisMusings
        Nov 26 '18 at 19:22
















      Thank you!! I'm actually having some of the most trouble in proofs on these manipulations of rather simple algebra, I guess because it's so ingrained to just be true.
      – metisMusings
      Nov 26 '18 at 19:22




      Thank you!! I'm actually having some of the most trouble in proofs on these manipulations of rather simple algebra, I guess because it's so ingrained to just be true.
      – metisMusings
      Nov 26 '18 at 19:22











      1














      We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is



      $$dk=-1$$



      and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain



      $$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        1














        We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is



        $$dk=-1$$



        and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain



        $$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          1












          1








          1






          We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is



          $$dk=-1$$



          and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain



          $$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$






          share|cite|improve this answer












          We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is



          $$dk=-1$$



          and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain



          $$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 25 '18 at 22:37









          gimusi

          1




          1























              0














              Presumably the book has already proved or taken as axioms:





              • $(ab)c=a(bc)$ and you can then write the result as $abc$, called associativity of multiplication


              • $ab=ba$, call commutativity of multiplication

              • $(-1)c=-c$

              • $(-1)(-1)=1$

              • the only divisors of $1$ are $1$ and $−1$, or at least that the only positive divisor of $1$ is $1$


              Then using the first three points you have $(-1)dk = ((-1)d)k=(d(-1))k = d((-1)k)=d(-k) $



              while, since $dk=-1$, you have $(-1)dk=(-1)(-1)=1$ from the fourth point



              together implying $d(-k)=1$, and since $d$ is assumed to be positive it must be $1$ as the only positive divisor of $1$, leading to the conclusion that $-k=1$ and so $(-1)(-k)=(-1)1$, i.e. $k=-1$






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                0














                Presumably the book has already proved or taken as axioms:





                • $(ab)c=a(bc)$ and you can then write the result as $abc$, called associativity of multiplication


                • $ab=ba$, call commutativity of multiplication

                • $(-1)c=-c$

                • $(-1)(-1)=1$

                • the only divisors of $1$ are $1$ and $−1$, or at least that the only positive divisor of $1$ is $1$


                Then using the first three points you have $(-1)dk = ((-1)d)k=(d(-1))k = d((-1)k)=d(-k) $



                while, since $dk=-1$, you have $(-1)dk=(-1)(-1)=1$ from the fourth point



                together implying $d(-k)=1$, and since $d$ is assumed to be positive it must be $1$ as the only positive divisor of $1$, leading to the conclusion that $-k=1$ and so $(-1)(-k)=(-1)1$, i.e. $k=-1$






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  0












                  0








                  0






                  Presumably the book has already proved or taken as axioms:





                  • $(ab)c=a(bc)$ and you can then write the result as $abc$, called associativity of multiplication


                  • $ab=ba$, call commutativity of multiplication

                  • $(-1)c=-c$

                  • $(-1)(-1)=1$

                  • the only divisors of $1$ are $1$ and $−1$, or at least that the only positive divisor of $1$ is $1$


                  Then using the first three points you have $(-1)dk = ((-1)d)k=(d(-1))k = d((-1)k)=d(-k) $



                  while, since $dk=-1$, you have $(-1)dk=(-1)(-1)=1$ from the fourth point



                  together implying $d(-k)=1$, and since $d$ is assumed to be positive it must be $1$ as the only positive divisor of $1$, leading to the conclusion that $-k=1$ and so $(-1)(-k)=(-1)1$, i.e. $k=-1$






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Presumably the book has already proved or taken as axioms:





                  • $(ab)c=a(bc)$ and you can then write the result as $abc$, called associativity of multiplication


                  • $ab=ba$, call commutativity of multiplication

                  • $(-1)c=-c$

                  • $(-1)(-1)=1$

                  • the only divisors of $1$ are $1$ and $−1$, or at least that the only positive divisor of $1$ is $1$


                  Then using the first three points you have $(-1)dk = ((-1)d)k=(d(-1))k = d((-1)k)=d(-k) $



                  while, since $dk=-1$, you have $(-1)dk=(-1)(-1)=1$ from the fourth point



                  together implying $d(-k)=1$, and since $d$ is assumed to be positive it must be $1$ as the only positive divisor of $1$, leading to the conclusion that $-k=1$ and so $(-1)(-k)=(-1)1$, i.e. $k=-1$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 25 '18 at 22:51









                  Henry

                  98.1k475161




                  98.1k475161






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3013506%2fdivisors-of-1-are-only-1-and-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      Puebla de Zaragoza

                      Musa