Why do we notate the greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ as $(a,b)$?












4












$begingroup$


In my textbook on elementary number theory from a class last year, as well as elsewhere through my academic experience and even posts here, I often see the greatest common divisor notated as $(a,b)$ (where this represents the greatest common divisor of $a,b$).



My question is, why is such an unusual notation used? I say it's unusual (if not a bit absurd), for a couple of reasons:




  • It is unintuitive. It does not grant the reader an immediate knowledge of what it means. In particular, I can easily see it being misinterpreted as an ordered pair of points, and not as a function (which it basically is and I touch on in a second) or representing a single value. Good notation would be immediately understood, no? One should not struggle with parsing through the context or meaning.


  • A clearer notation is often used, and just three letters away. You could certainly think of $(a,b)$ as an ordered pair, if we consider it a function. I often see the alternate $gcd(a,b)$: a function, which takes in two inputs ($a$ and $b$), and outputs their greatest common divisor (or factor, if you prefer). Merely adding the three letters makes the notation clearer by clarifying it is a function, and using a relatively well-accepted acronym. (Or, at least, I often hear it abbreviated "g.c.d." in school.)



I've mulled this over for a while and I can't think of much without borrowing inspiration from other "unusual" notations. For example:




  • Common understanding in context: consider the $log(x)$ function. Depending on context, without a base stated as seen here, it can be presumed to mean whatever is most "appropriate." It could be base $e$ (common in mathematics), base $10$ (common in engineering), or base $2$ (common in computer science). The ambiguity is essentially resolved by context in other words - personally, not a fan of that (I like the explicit stating of bases for full clarity), but if such a motivation holds elsewhere, it might stand to reason that $(a,b)$ could just be taken as a shorthand and "understood" in the context of number theory to simply be the greatest common divisor. That it is in fact used despite $gcd(a,b)$ being clearer and somewhat common also does seem to suggest this playing a role.


  • Perhaps it just started that way and it kept being used. For example, 3Blue1Brown has made a nice video (based on a MSE post) regarding how logarithms, roots, and exponentiation can be unintuitive from a notation perspective, and proposes an alternative, easier to understand notation. I haven't been in middle school in nearly a decade, but guessing from discussions online, that obviously hasn't really picked up too much. In that sense, perhaps it's like that for $(a,b)$: like we still notate exponentiation, etc., the same way today despite how counterintuitive it is (at least for students), perhaps it just "stuck" and proliferated?



I wasn't able to easily find any reason why online, and it bugs me a bit, so I ask:




Why do we so unintuitively notate the greatest common divisor of two numbers $a,b$ as $(a,b)$?




I of course recognize that this is somewhat moot in light of how easily it's made clear - as established above, all I have to do is append the front of the parenthetical by $gcd$ or $gcf$ to make it way better. And of course, people do that. But I'm more curious in where this ambiguous former notation arose and, in light of a better notation, why it is still used today.






elementary-number-theory notation math-history greatest-common-divisor







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Maybe it comes from ring theory where in PID domain the ideal generated by two elements, say $a$ and $b$ is the ideal generated by their gcd. In symbols $(a,b)=(gcd(a,b))$.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:44






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I agree with you that it's a stupid and ambiguous notation. As for why it is sometimes written like that, maybe our sister site specifically dedicated to history of mathematics would be a better place to ask.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:48








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    But as a notation $(a,b)$ is more universal in the sense it does not depend of the language. For instance in french they use $pgcd(a,b)$ (plus petit commun diviseur) or sometimes $awedge b$.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:49












  • $begingroup$
    @mouthetics Hm, that's an interesting thought. I haven't studied much ring theory, though (will be getting pretty into it this coming spring semester though ^_^). Though I would think elementary number theory - and in turn the notation - would precede that of the study of algebraic structures. But I'm spitballing based on which I feel would be easier to get started as a field (no actual source/citation). The language tenet is a good point, though. Though would could make the counterpoint of just each language having their own variant still would be more intuitive, at least on paper.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:50






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Probably a shorthand that made its way into the literature; writing gcd constantly could become cumbersome. That, and it coincides with the gcd for ideals. Context gets rid of the ambiguity, I see no issue with it. Edit: $(((a,b),(c,d)), ((e,f),(g,h)))$; an ordered pair of open intervals whose end points are the gcds of some integers?
    $endgroup$
    – ÍgjøgnumMeg
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:54


















4












$begingroup$


In my textbook on elementary number theory from a class last year, as well as elsewhere through my academic experience and even posts here, I often see the greatest common divisor notated as $(a,b)$ (where this represents the greatest common divisor of $a,b$).



My question is, why is such an unusual notation used? I say it's unusual (if not a bit absurd), for a couple of reasons:




  • It is unintuitive. It does not grant the reader an immediate knowledge of what it means. In particular, I can easily see it being misinterpreted as an ordered pair of points, and not as a function (which it basically is and I touch on in a second) or representing a single value. Good notation would be immediately understood, no? One should not struggle with parsing through the context or meaning.


  • A clearer notation is often used, and just three letters away. You could certainly think of $(a,b)$ as an ordered pair, if we consider it a function. I often see the alternate $gcd(a,b)$: a function, which takes in two inputs ($a$ and $b$), and outputs their greatest common divisor (or factor, if you prefer). Merely adding the three letters makes the notation clearer by clarifying it is a function, and using a relatively well-accepted acronym. (Or, at least, I often hear it abbreviated "g.c.d." in school.)



I've mulled this over for a while and I can't think of much without borrowing inspiration from other "unusual" notations. For example:




  • Common understanding in context: consider the $log(x)$ function. Depending on context, without a base stated as seen here, it can be presumed to mean whatever is most "appropriate." It could be base $e$ (common in mathematics), base $10$ (common in engineering), or base $2$ (common in computer science). The ambiguity is essentially resolved by context in other words - personally, not a fan of that (I like the explicit stating of bases for full clarity), but if such a motivation holds elsewhere, it might stand to reason that $(a,b)$ could just be taken as a shorthand and "understood" in the context of number theory to simply be the greatest common divisor. That it is in fact used despite $gcd(a,b)$ being clearer and somewhat common also does seem to suggest this playing a role.


  • Perhaps it just started that way and it kept being used. For example, 3Blue1Brown has made a nice video (based on a MSE post) regarding how logarithms, roots, and exponentiation can be unintuitive from a notation perspective, and proposes an alternative, easier to understand notation. I haven't been in middle school in nearly a decade, but guessing from discussions online, that obviously hasn't really picked up too much. In that sense, perhaps it's like that for $(a,b)$: like we still notate exponentiation, etc., the same way today despite how counterintuitive it is (at least for students), perhaps it just "stuck" and proliferated?



I wasn't able to easily find any reason why online, and it bugs me a bit, so I ask:




Why do we so unintuitively notate the greatest common divisor of two numbers $a,b$ as $(a,b)$?




I of course recognize that this is somewhat moot in light of how easily it's made clear - as established above, all I have to do is append the front of the parenthetical by $gcd$ or $gcf$ to make it way better. And of course, people do that. But I'm more curious in where this ambiguous former notation arose and, in light of a better notation, why it is still used today.






elementary-number-theory notation math-history greatest-common-divisor







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Maybe it comes from ring theory where in PID domain the ideal generated by two elements, say $a$ and $b$ is the ideal generated by their gcd. In symbols $(a,b)=(gcd(a,b))$.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:44






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I agree with you that it's a stupid and ambiguous notation. As for why it is sometimes written like that, maybe our sister site specifically dedicated to history of mathematics would be a better place to ask.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:48








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    But as a notation $(a,b)$ is more universal in the sense it does not depend of the language. For instance in french they use $pgcd(a,b)$ (plus petit commun diviseur) or sometimes $awedge b$.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:49












  • $begingroup$
    @mouthetics Hm, that's an interesting thought. I haven't studied much ring theory, though (will be getting pretty into it this coming spring semester though ^_^). Though I would think elementary number theory - and in turn the notation - would precede that of the study of algebraic structures. But I'm spitballing based on which I feel would be easier to get started as a field (no actual source/citation). The language tenet is a good point, though. Though would could make the counterpoint of just each language having their own variant still would be more intuitive, at least on paper.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:50






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Probably a shorthand that made its way into the literature; writing gcd constantly could become cumbersome. That, and it coincides with the gcd for ideals. Context gets rid of the ambiguity, I see no issue with it. Edit: $(((a,b),(c,d)), ((e,f),(g,h)))$; an ordered pair of open intervals whose end points are the gcds of some integers?
    $endgroup$
    – ÍgjøgnumMeg
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:54
















4












4








4





$begingroup$


In my textbook on elementary number theory from a class last year, as well as elsewhere through my academic experience and even posts here, I often see the greatest common divisor notated as $(a,b)$ (where this represents the greatest common divisor of $a,b$).



My question is, why is such an unusual notation used? I say it's unusual (if not a bit absurd), for a couple of reasons:




  • It is unintuitive. It does not grant the reader an immediate knowledge of what it means. In particular, I can easily see it being misinterpreted as an ordered pair of points, and not as a function (which it basically is and I touch on in a second) or representing a single value. Good notation would be immediately understood, no? One should not struggle with parsing through the context or meaning.


  • A clearer notation is often used, and just three letters away. You could certainly think of $(a,b)$ as an ordered pair, if we consider it a function. I often see the alternate $gcd(a,b)$: a function, which takes in two inputs ($a$ and $b$), and outputs their greatest common divisor (or factor, if you prefer). Merely adding the three letters makes the notation clearer by clarifying it is a function, and using a relatively well-accepted acronym. (Or, at least, I often hear it abbreviated "g.c.d." in school.)



I've mulled this over for a while and I can't think of much without borrowing inspiration from other "unusual" notations. For example:




  • Common understanding in context: consider the $log(x)$ function. Depending on context, without a base stated as seen here, it can be presumed to mean whatever is most "appropriate." It could be base $e$ (common in mathematics), base $10$ (common in engineering), or base $2$ (common in computer science). The ambiguity is essentially resolved by context in other words - personally, not a fan of that (I like the explicit stating of bases for full clarity), but if such a motivation holds elsewhere, it might stand to reason that $(a,b)$ could just be taken as a shorthand and "understood" in the context of number theory to simply be the greatest common divisor. That it is in fact used despite $gcd(a,b)$ being clearer and somewhat common also does seem to suggest this playing a role.


  • Perhaps it just started that way and it kept being used. For example, 3Blue1Brown has made a nice video (based on a MSE post) regarding how logarithms, roots, and exponentiation can be unintuitive from a notation perspective, and proposes an alternative, easier to understand notation. I haven't been in middle school in nearly a decade, but guessing from discussions online, that obviously hasn't really picked up too much. In that sense, perhaps it's like that for $(a,b)$: like we still notate exponentiation, etc., the same way today despite how counterintuitive it is (at least for students), perhaps it just "stuck" and proliferated?



I wasn't able to easily find any reason why online, and it bugs me a bit, so I ask:




Why do we so unintuitively notate the greatest common divisor of two numbers $a,b$ as $(a,b)$?




I of course recognize that this is somewhat moot in light of how easily it's made clear - as established above, all I have to do is append the front of the parenthetical by $gcd$ or $gcf$ to make it way better. And of course, people do that. But I'm more curious in where this ambiguous former notation arose and, in light of a better notation, why it is still used today.






elementary-number-theory notation math-history greatest-common-divisor







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




In my textbook on elementary number theory from a class last year, as well as elsewhere through my academic experience and even posts here, I often see the greatest common divisor notated as $(a,b)$ (where this represents the greatest common divisor of $a,b$).



My question is, why is such an unusual notation used? I say it's unusual (if not a bit absurd), for a couple of reasons:




  • It is unintuitive. It does not grant the reader an immediate knowledge of what it means. In particular, I can easily see it being misinterpreted as an ordered pair of points, and not as a function (which it basically is and I touch on in a second) or representing a single value. Good notation would be immediately understood, no? One should not struggle with parsing through the context or meaning.


  • A clearer notation is often used, and just three letters away. You could certainly think of $(a,b)$ as an ordered pair, if we consider it a function. I often see the alternate $gcd(a,b)$: a function, which takes in two inputs ($a$ and $b$), and outputs their greatest common divisor (or factor, if you prefer). Merely adding the three letters makes the notation clearer by clarifying it is a function, and using a relatively well-accepted acronym. (Or, at least, I often hear it abbreviated "g.c.d." in school.)



I've mulled this over for a while and I can't think of much without borrowing inspiration from other "unusual" notations. For example:




  • Common understanding in context: consider the $log(x)$ function. Depending on context, without a base stated as seen here, it can be presumed to mean whatever is most "appropriate." It could be base $e$ (common in mathematics), base $10$ (common in engineering), or base $2$ (common in computer science). The ambiguity is essentially resolved by context in other words - personally, not a fan of that (I like the explicit stating of bases for full clarity), but if such a motivation holds elsewhere, it might stand to reason that $(a,b)$ could just be taken as a shorthand and "understood" in the context of number theory to simply be the greatest common divisor. That it is in fact used despite $gcd(a,b)$ being clearer and somewhat common also does seem to suggest this playing a role.


  • Perhaps it just started that way and it kept being used. For example, 3Blue1Brown has made a nice video (based on a MSE post) regarding how logarithms, roots, and exponentiation can be unintuitive from a notation perspective, and proposes an alternative, easier to understand notation. I haven't been in middle school in nearly a decade, but guessing from discussions online, that obviously hasn't really picked up too much. In that sense, perhaps it's like that for $(a,b)$: like we still notate exponentiation, etc., the same way today despite how counterintuitive it is (at least for students), perhaps it just "stuck" and proliferated?



I wasn't able to easily find any reason why online, and it bugs me a bit, so I ask:




Why do we so unintuitively notate the greatest common divisor of two numbers $a,b$ as $(a,b)$?




I of course recognize that this is somewhat moot in light of how easily it's made clear - as established above, all I have to do is append the front of the parenthetical by $gcd$ or $gcf$ to make it way better. And of course, people do that. But I'm more curious in where this ambiguous former notation arose and, in light of a better notation, why it is still used today.






elementary-number-theory notation math-history greatest-common-divisor




elementary-number-theory notation math-history greatest-common-divisor






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 29 '18 at 23:35









Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer

10.7k31843




10.7k31843








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Maybe it comes from ring theory where in PID domain the ideal generated by two elements, say $a$ and $b$ is the ideal generated by their gcd. In symbols $(a,b)=(gcd(a,b))$.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:44






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I agree with you that it's a stupid and ambiguous notation. As for why it is sometimes written like that, maybe our sister site specifically dedicated to history of mathematics would be a better place to ask.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:48








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    But as a notation $(a,b)$ is more universal in the sense it does not depend of the language. For instance in french they use $pgcd(a,b)$ (plus petit commun diviseur) or sometimes $awedge b$.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:49












  • $begingroup$
    @mouthetics Hm, that's an interesting thought. I haven't studied much ring theory, though (will be getting pretty into it this coming spring semester though ^_^). Though I would think elementary number theory - and in turn the notation - would precede that of the study of algebraic structures. But I'm spitballing based on which I feel would be easier to get started as a field (no actual source/citation). The language tenet is a good point, though. Though would could make the counterpoint of just each language having their own variant still would be more intuitive, at least on paper.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:50






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Probably a shorthand that made its way into the literature; writing gcd constantly could become cumbersome. That, and it coincides with the gcd for ideals. Context gets rid of the ambiguity, I see no issue with it. Edit: $(((a,b),(c,d)), ((e,f),(g,h)))$; an ordered pair of open intervals whose end points are the gcds of some integers?
    $endgroup$
    – ÍgjøgnumMeg
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:54
















  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Maybe it comes from ring theory where in PID domain the ideal generated by two elements, say $a$ and $b$ is the ideal generated by their gcd. In symbols $(a,b)=(gcd(a,b))$.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:44






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I agree with you that it's a stupid and ambiguous notation. As for why it is sometimes written like that, maybe our sister site specifically dedicated to history of mathematics would be a better place to ask.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:48








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    But as a notation $(a,b)$ is more universal in the sense it does not depend of the language. For instance in french they use $pgcd(a,b)$ (plus petit commun diviseur) or sometimes $awedge b$.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:49












  • $begingroup$
    @mouthetics Hm, that's an interesting thought. I haven't studied much ring theory, though (will be getting pretty into it this coming spring semester though ^_^). Though I would think elementary number theory - and in turn the notation - would precede that of the study of algebraic structures. But I'm spitballing based on which I feel would be easier to get started as a field (no actual source/citation). The language tenet is a good point, though. Though would could make the counterpoint of just each language having their own variant still would be more intuitive, at least on paper.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:50






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Probably a shorthand that made its way into the literature; writing gcd constantly could become cumbersome. That, and it coincides with the gcd for ideals. Context gets rid of the ambiguity, I see no issue with it. Edit: $(((a,b),(c,d)), ((e,f),(g,h)))$; an ordered pair of open intervals whose end points are the gcds of some integers?
    $endgroup$
    – ÍgjøgnumMeg
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:54










4




4




$begingroup$
Maybe it comes from ring theory where in PID domain the ideal generated by two elements, say $a$ and $b$ is the ideal generated by their gcd. In symbols $(a,b)=(gcd(a,b))$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Dec 29 '18 at 23:44




$begingroup$
Maybe it comes from ring theory where in PID domain the ideal generated by two elements, say $a$ and $b$ is the ideal generated by their gcd. In symbols $(a,b)=(gcd(a,b))$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Dec 29 '18 at 23:44




4




4




$begingroup$
I agree with you that it's a stupid and ambiguous notation. As for why it is sometimes written like that, maybe our sister site specifically dedicated to history of mathematics would be a better place to ask.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Dec 29 '18 at 23:48






$begingroup$
I agree with you that it's a stupid and ambiguous notation. As for why it is sometimes written like that, maybe our sister site specifically dedicated to history of mathematics would be a better place to ask.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Dec 29 '18 at 23:48






3




3




$begingroup$
But as a notation $(a,b)$ is more universal in the sense it does not depend of the language. For instance in french they use $pgcd(a,b)$ (plus petit commun diviseur) or sometimes $awedge b$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Dec 29 '18 at 23:49






$begingroup$
But as a notation $(a,b)$ is more universal in the sense it does not depend of the language. For instance in french they use $pgcd(a,b)$ (plus petit commun diviseur) or sometimes $awedge b$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Dec 29 '18 at 23:49














$begingroup$
@mouthetics Hm, that's an interesting thought. I haven't studied much ring theory, though (will be getting pretty into it this coming spring semester though ^_^). Though I would think elementary number theory - and in turn the notation - would precede that of the study of algebraic structures. But I'm spitballing based on which I feel would be easier to get started as a field (no actual source/citation). The language tenet is a good point, though. Though would could make the counterpoint of just each language having their own variant still would be more intuitive, at least on paper.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 29 '18 at 23:50




$begingroup$
@mouthetics Hm, that's an interesting thought. I haven't studied much ring theory, though (will be getting pretty into it this coming spring semester though ^_^). Though I would think elementary number theory - and in turn the notation - would precede that of the study of algebraic structures. But I'm spitballing based on which I feel would be easier to get started as a field (no actual source/citation). The language tenet is a good point, though. Though would could make the counterpoint of just each language having their own variant still would be more intuitive, at least on paper.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 29 '18 at 23:50




2




2




$begingroup$
Probably a shorthand that made its way into the literature; writing gcd constantly could become cumbersome. That, and it coincides with the gcd for ideals. Context gets rid of the ambiguity, I see no issue with it. Edit: $(((a,b),(c,d)), ((e,f),(g,h)))$; an ordered pair of open intervals whose end points are the gcds of some integers?
$endgroup$
– ÍgjøgnumMeg
Dec 29 '18 at 23:54






$begingroup$
Probably a shorthand that made its way into the literature; writing gcd constantly could become cumbersome. That, and it coincides with the gcd for ideals. Context gets rid of the ambiguity, I see no issue with it. Edit: $(((a,b),(c,d)), ((e,f),(g,h)))$; an ordered pair of open intervals whose end points are the gcds of some integers?
$endgroup$
– ÍgjøgnumMeg
Dec 29 '18 at 23:54












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

The pair / tuple notation used both for gcds and ideals serves to highlight their similarity. Just as in the domain $,Bbb Z,,$ in any PID we have the ideal equality $,(a,b) = (c)iff gcd(a,b) cong c,,$ where the congruence means "associate", i.e. they divide each other (differ by only a unit factor). Thus in a PID we can equivalently view $,(a,b),$ as denoting either a gcd or an ideal, and the freedom to move back-and-forth between these viewpoints often proves useful.



Generally gcds and ideals share many properties, e.g. associative, commutative, distributive laws, and



$$ bequiv b'!!!pmod{!a},Rightarrow, (a,b) = (a,b')$$



Using the shared properties and notation we can give unified proofs of theorems that hold true for both gcds and ideals, e.g. in the proofs below we can read the tuples either as gcds or ideals



$$(a,b),(a^2,b^2), =, (a,b)^3 {rm so} (a,b)=1,Rightarrow, (a^2,b^2) = 1$$



$quad color{#c00}{ab = cd} Rightarrow (a,c),(a,d), = (aa,color{#c00}{cd},ac,ad), =, color{#c00}a,(a,color{#c00}b,c,d), [= (a) {rm if} (a,c,d) = 1] $



Such abstraction aids understanding generalizations and analogies in more general ring-theoretic contexts - something that will become clearer when one studies divisor theory, e.g. see the following



Friedemann Lucius. Rings with a theory of greatest common divisors.

manuscripta math. 95, 117-36 (1998).



Olaf Neumann. Was sollen und was sind Divisoren?

(What are divisors and what are they good for?) Math. Semesterber, 48, 2, 139-192 (2001).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Downvoter What does the donwvote mean here?
    $endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Dec 30 '18 at 0:33














Your Answer








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%2f3056365%2fwhy-do-we-notate-the-greatest-common-divisor-of-a-and-b-as-a-b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7












$begingroup$

The pair / tuple notation used both for gcds and ideals serves to highlight their similarity. Just as in the domain $,Bbb Z,,$ in any PID we have the ideal equality $,(a,b) = (c)iff gcd(a,b) cong c,,$ where the congruence means "associate", i.e. they divide each other (differ by only a unit factor). Thus in a PID we can equivalently view $,(a,b),$ as denoting either a gcd or an ideal, and the freedom to move back-and-forth between these viewpoints often proves useful.



Generally gcds and ideals share many properties, e.g. associative, commutative, distributive laws, and



$$ bequiv b'!!!pmod{!a},Rightarrow, (a,b) = (a,b')$$



Using the shared properties and notation we can give unified proofs of theorems that hold true for both gcds and ideals, e.g. in the proofs below we can read the tuples either as gcds or ideals



$$(a,b),(a^2,b^2), =, (a,b)^3 {rm so} (a,b)=1,Rightarrow, (a^2,b^2) = 1$$



$quad color{#c00}{ab = cd} Rightarrow (a,c),(a,d), = (aa,color{#c00}{cd},ac,ad), =, color{#c00}a,(a,color{#c00}b,c,d), [= (a) {rm if} (a,c,d) = 1] $



Such abstraction aids understanding generalizations and analogies in more general ring-theoretic contexts - something that will become clearer when one studies divisor theory, e.g. see the following



Friedemann Lucius. Rings with a theory of greatest common divisors.

manuscripta math. 95, 117-36 (1998).



Olaf Neumann. Was sollen und was sind Divisoren?

(What are divisors and what are they good for?) Math. Semesterber, 48, 2, 139-192 (2001).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Downvoter What does the donwvote mean here?
    $endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Dec 30 '18 at 0:33


















7












$begingroup$

The pair / tuple notation used both for gcds and ideals serves to highlight their similarity. Just as in the domain $,Bbb Z,,$ in any PID we have the ideal equality $,(a,b) = (c)iff gcd(a,b) cong c,,$ where the congruence means "associate", i.e. they divide each other (differ by only a unit factor). Thus in a PID we can equivalently view $,(a,b),$ as denoting either a gcd or an ideal, and the freedom to move back-and-forth between these viewpoints often proves useful.



Generally gcds and ideals share many properties, e.g. associative, commutative, distributive laws, and



$$ bequiv b'!!!pmod{!a},Rightarrow, (a,b) = (a,b')$$



Using the shared properties and notation we can give unified proofs of theorems that hold true for both gcds and ideals, e.g. in the proofs below we can read the tuples either as gcds or ideals



$$(a,b),(a^2,b^2), =, (a,b)^3 {rm so} (a,b)=1,Rightarrow, (a^2,b^2) = 1$$



$quad color{#c00}{ab = cd} Rightarrow (a,c),(a,d), = (aa,color{#c00}{cd},ac,ad), =, color{#c00}a,(a,color{#c00}b,c,d), [= (a) {rm if} (a,c,d) = 1] $



Such abstraction aids understanding generalizations and analogies in more general ring-theoretic contexts - something that will become clearer when one studies divisor theory, e.g. see the following



Friedemann Lucius. Rings with a theory of greatest common divisors.

manuscripta math. 95, 117-36 (1998).



Olaf Neumann. Was sollen und was sind Divisoren?

(What are divisors and what are they good for?) Math. Semesterber, 48, 2, 139-192 (2001).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Downvoter What does the donwvote mean here?
    $endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Dec 30 '18 at 0:33
















7












7








7





$begingroup$

The pair / tuple notation used both for gcds and ideals serves to highlight their similarity. Just as in the domain $,Bbb Z,,$ in any PID we have the ideal equality $,(a,b) = (c)iff gcd(a,b) cong c,,$ where the congruence means "associate", i.e. they divide each other (differ by only a unit factor). Thus in a PID we can equivalently view $,(a,b),$ as denoting either a gcd or an ideal, and the freedom to move back-and-forth between these viewpoints often proves useful.



Generally gcds and ideals share many properties, e.g. associative, commutative, distributive laws, and



$$ bequiv b'!!!pmod{!a},Rightarrow, (a,b) = (a,b')$$



Using the shared properties and notation we can give unified proofs of theorems that hold true for both gcds and ideals, e.g. in the proofs below we can read the tuples either as gcds or ideals



$$(a,b),(a^2,b^2), =, (a,b)^3 {rm so} (a,b)=1,Rightarrow, (a^2,b^2) = 1$$



$quad color{#c00}{ab = cd} Rightarrow (a,c),(a,d), = (aa,color{#c00}{cd},ac,ad), =, color{#c00}a,(a,color{#c00}b,c,d), [= (a) {rm if} (a,c,d) = 1] $



Such abstraction aids understanding generalizations and analogies in more general ring-theoretic contexts - something that will become clearer when one studies divisor theory, e.g. see the following



Friedemann Lucius. Rings with a theory of greatest common divisors.

manuscripta math. 95, 117-36 (1998).



Olaf Neumann. Was sollen und was sind Divisoren?

(What are divisors and what are they good for?) Math. Semesterber, 48, 2, 139-192 (2001).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The pair / tuple notation used both for gcds and ideals serves to highlight their similarity. Just as in the domain $,Bbb Z,,$ in any PID we have the ideal equality $,(a,b) = (c)iff gcd(a,b) cong c,,$ where the congruence means "associate", i.e. they divide each other (differ by only a unit factor). Thus in a PID we can equivalently view $,(a,b),$ as denoting either a gcd or an ideal, and the freedom to move back-and-forth between these viewpoints often proves useful.



Generally gcds and ideals share many properties, e.g. associative, commutative, distributive laws, and



$$ bequiv b'!!!pmod{!a},Rightarrow, (a,b) = (a,b')$$



Using the shared properties and notation we can give unified proofs of theorems that hold true for both gcds and ideals, e.g. in the proofs below we can read the tuples either as gcds or ideals



$$(a,b),(a^2,b^2), =, (a,b)^3 {rm so} (a,b)=1,Rightarrow, (a^2,b^2) = 1$$



$quad color{#c00}{ab = cd} Rightarrow (a,c),(a,d), = (aa,color{#c00}{cd},ac,ad), =, color{#c00}a,(a,color{#c00}b,c,d), [= (a) {rm if} (a,c,d) = 1] $



Such abstraction aids understanding generalizations and analogies in more general ring-theoretic contexts - something that will become clearer when one studies divisor theory, e.g. see the following



Friedemann Lucius. Rings with a theory of greatest common divisors.

manuscripta math. 95, 117-36 (1998).



Olaf Neumann. Was sollen und was sind Divisoren?

(What are divisors and what are they good for?) Math. Semesterber, 48, 2, 139-192 (2001).







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 30 '18 at 0:43

























answered Dec 30 '18 at 0:01









Bill DubuqueBill Dubuque

214k29198660




214k29198660








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Downvoter What does the donwvote mean here?
    $endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Dec 30 '18 at 0:33
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Downvoter What does the donwvote mean here?
    $endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Dec 30 '18 at 0:33










1




1




$begingroup$
@Downvoter What does the donwvote mean here?
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Dec 30 '18 at 0:33






$begingroup$
@Downvoter What does the donwvote mean here?
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Dec 30 '18 at 0:33




















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056365%2fwhy-do-we-notate-the-greatest-common-divisor-of-a-and-b-as-a-b%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

Bundesstraße 106

Image
Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland. Zur gleichnamigen Straße in Österreich siehe Mölltal Straße. Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße/Wartung/DE-B Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland Karte Basisdaten Betreiber: Deutschland  Bundesrepublik Deutschland Straßenbeginn: Wismar ( 53° 54′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.900536 11.396875 ) Straßenende: Schwerin ( 53° 36′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.592785 11.404892 ) Gesamtlänge: 40,7 km Bundesland: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ausbauzustand: zweistreifig [1] Bundesstraße 106 in Schwerin (Umgehungsstraße) Straßenverlauf Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg Ortsumgehung Wismar Wallensteingraben über   Dorf Mecklenburg Wallensteingraben Groß Stieten Bad Kleinen OT Niendorf Bahnstrecke Lübeck–Bad Kleinen Zickhusen Lübstorf Klein Trebbow OT Kirch Stück ...
Read more

Verónica Boquete

Image
Verónica Boquete im Trikot der Nationalmannschaft (2013) Personalia Name Verónica Boquete Giadans Geburtstag 9. April 1987 Geburtsort Santiago de Compostela, Spanien Größe 159 cm Position Mittelfeld / Sturm Juniorinnen Jahre Station 2001–2005 Xuventú Aguiño Frauen Jahre Station Spiele (Tore) 1 2005–2008 Prainsa Zaragoza 83 (40) 2008–2010 Espanyol Barcelona 53 (30) 2010 Buffalo Flash 9 0 (9) 2010 Chicago Red Stars 3 0 (1) 2010–2011 Espanyol Barcelona 26 (41) 2011 Philadelphia Independence 13 0 (5) 2011 Energija Woronesch 5 0 (1) 2012–2014 Tyresö FF 39 (14) 2014 Portland Thorns FC 15 0 (4) 2014–2015 1. FFC Frankfurt 23 0 (7) 2015–2016 FC Bayern München 9 0 (0) 2016–2018 Paris Saint-Germain 31 0 (8) 2018 Peking BG Phoenix 2019– Utah Royals FC 0 0 (0) Nationalmannschaft Jahre Auswahl ...
Read more

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

Image
Die Lage des Ida-Boy-Ed-Gartens, rot markiert Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten, Blick von der Wakenitzmauer durch das Tor in der Stadtmauer Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten ist eine Straße der Lübecker Altstadt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks Lage | Der etwa 90 Meter lange Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten befindet sich an der nördlichen Spitze der Altstadtinsel, vor dem Burgtor. Die in einem Bogen durch eine Grünanlage hangaufwärts führende Straße verbindet die Wakenitzmauer mit der Burgtorbrücke. Geschichte | Der heutige Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten wurde ursprünglich als Verlängerung der Wakenitzmauer angelegt. 1903 wurde in den erhaltenen Teil der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer, an dem die Wakenitzmauer bei der Einmündung der Kaiserstraße begann, ein Tor mit einem großen Bogen für die Durchführung der Straße und zwei kleineren seitlichen Öffnungen für Fußgänger gebrochen, um für die neu errichteten Wohnhäuser in diesem Bereich ...
Read more