Divisors of $-1$ are only $1$ and $-1$?
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 $(-1)(-1)$?
discrete-mathematics
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
discrete-mathematics
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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, $d=1$.
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
add a comment |
We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is
$$dk=-1$$
and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain
$$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$
add a comment |
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. $k=-1$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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, $d=1$.
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
add a comment |
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, $d=1$.
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
add a comment |
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, $d=1$.
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, $d=1$.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is
$$dk=-1$$
and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain
$$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$
add a comment |
We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is
$$dk=-1$$
and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain
$$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$
add a comment |
We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is
$$dk=-1$$
and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain
$$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$
We are assuming that $d$ is a divisor of $-1$ that is
$$dk=-1$$
and multiplying each side by $-1$ we obtain
$$-1cdot dk=-1cdot (-1)=1 iff d(-k)=1 iff d=1,-1 $$
answered Nov 25 '18 at 22:37
gimusi
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
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. $k=-1$
add a comment |
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. $k=-1$
add a comment |
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. $k=-1$
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. $k=-1$
answered Nov 25 '18 at 22:51
Henry
98.1k475161
98.1k475161
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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