|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Image:Greatest common divisor chart.png|thumb|Greatest common divisor of numbers 0-10. Line labels = first number. X axis = second number. Y axis = GCD.]]
| | A lagging computer is absolutely annoying plus will be very a headache. Almost each person who uses a computer faces this issue certain time or the other. If the computer additionally suffers within the same issue, there are it hard to continue working as routine. In such a situation, the thought, "what must I do to make my PC run quicker?" is recurring and infuriating. There's a solution, however!<br><br>Google Chrome crashes on Windows 7 by the corrupted cache contents and issues with all the stored browsing information. Delete the browsing data plus obvious the contents of the cache to resolve this issue.<br><br>Over time the disk may furthermore get fragmented. Fragmentation causes your computer to slow down because it takes windows much longer to locate a files place. Fortunately, the PC has a built in disk defragmenter. You are able to run this system by clicking "Start" - "All Programs" - "Accessories" - "System Tools" - "Disk Defragmenter". You might have the choice to choose which drives or partition you need to defragment. This action might take we several time so it happens to be advised to do this on a regular basis so as to avoid further fragmentation and to speed up a windows XP computer.<br><br>If you feel you don't have enough income at the time to upgrade, then the greatest way is to free up certain room by deleting several of the unwanted files and folders.<br><br>The 2nd step to fixing these errors is to utilize a system called a "[http://bestregistrycleanerfix.com/regzooka regzooka]" to scan by your computer and fix some of the registry mistakes which can moreover be leading to the error. A registry cleaner is a software system that will scan through the computer plus repair some of the problems that Windows has inside, permitting your computer to "remember" all settings it has whenever it loads up. Although the registry is continually being selected to aid load up a large number of programs on your PC, it's continually being saved incorrectly - leading to a large number of mistakes to be formed. To fix this problem, it's recommended we download a registry cleaner within the Internet and install it on the Pc, allowing Windows to run smoother again.<br><br>Why this problem occurs frequently? What are the causes of it? In truth, there are 3 main causes which will cause the PC freezing problem. To resolve the problem, we need to take 3 steps inside the following paragraphs.<br><br>By restoring the state of your program to an earlier date, error 1721 could not appear inside Windows 7, Vista plus XP. There is a tool called System Restore that we have to utilize in this process.<br><br>Registry cleaners have been crafted to fix all the broken files inside your system, permitting your computer to read any file it wants, whenever it wants. They function by scanning through the registry and checking every registry file. If the cleaner sees it is corrupt, then it might replace it automatically. |
| [[Image:Greatest common divisor.png|thumb|<math> \gcd(1,x) = y,</math> or [[Thomae's function]]. Hatching at bottom indicates ellipses.]]
| |
| | |
| In [[mathematics]], the '''greatest common divisor''' ('''gcd'''), also known as the '''greatest common factor''' ('''gcf'''), or '''highest common factor''' ('''hcf'''), of two or more [[integer]]s (at least one of which is not zero), is the largest positive integer that [[divisor|divides]] the numbers without a [[remainder]]. For example, the GCD of 8 and 12 is 4.<ref>{{harvtxt|Long|1972|p=33}}</ref><ref>{{harvtxt|Pettofrezzo|Byrkit|1970|p=34}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| This notion can be extended to polynomials, see [[Polynomial greatest common divisor]], or to rational numbers (with integer quotients).
| |
| | |
| == Overview ==
| |
| | |
| === Notation ===
| |
| | |
| In this article we will denote the greatest common divisor of two integers ''a'' and ''b'' as gcd(''a'',''b''). Some older textbooks use (''a'',''b'').<ref>{{harvtxt|Long|1972|p=33}}</ref><ref>{{harvtxt|Pettofrezzo|Byrkit|1970|p=34}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Example ===
| |
| | |
| The number 54 can be expressed as a product of two other integers in several different ways:
| |
| | |
| : <math> 54 \times 1 = 27 \times 2 = 18 \times 3 = 9 \times 6. \, </math>
| |
| | |
| Thus the '''divisors of 54''' are:
| |
| | |
| : <math> 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18, 27, 54. \, </math>
| |
| | |
| Similarly '''the divisors of 24''' are:
| |
| | |
| : <math> 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24. \, </math>
| |
| | |
| The numbers that these two lists share in common are the '''common divisors''' of 54 and 24:
| |
| | |
| : <math> 1, 2, 3, 6. \, </math>
| |
| | |
| The greatest of these is 6. That is the '''greatest common divisor''' of 54 and 24. One writes:
| |
| | |
| : <math> \gcd(54,24) = 6. \, </math>
| |
| | |
| === Reducing fractions ===
| |
| | |
| The greatest common divisor is useful for reducing [[Fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s to be [[Irreducible fraction|in lowest terms]]. For example, gcd(42, 56) = 14, therefore,
| |
| | |
| :<math>\frac{42}{56}=\frac{3 \cdot 14 }{ 4 \cdot 14}=\frac{3 }{ 4}.</math>
| |
| | |
| === Coprime numbers ===
| |
| Two numbers are called ''relatively prime'', or ''[[coprime]]'' if their greatest common divisor equals 1. For example, 9 and 28 are relatively prime.
| |
| | |
| === A geometric view ===
| |
| [[File:24x60.svg|thumb|upright|alt="Tall, slender rectangle divided into a grid of squares. The rectangle is two squares wide and five squares tall."|A 24-by-60 rectangle is covered with ten 12-by-12 square tiles, where 12 is the GCD of 24 and 60. More generally, an ''a''-by-''b'' rectangle can be covered with square tiles of side-length ''c'' only if ''c'' is a common divisor of ''a'' and ''b''.]]
| |
| For example, a 24-by-60 rectangular area can be divided into a grid of: 1-by-1 squares, 2-by-2 squares, 3-by-3 squares, 4-by-4 squares, 6-by-6 squares or 12-by-12 squares. Therefore, 12 is the greatest common divisor of 24 and 60. A 24-by-60 rectangular area can be divided into a grid of 12-by-12 squares, with two squares along one edge (24/12 = 2) and five squares along the other (60/12 = 5).
| |
| | |
| == Calculation ==<!-- Section linked from [[Fundamental theorem of arithmetic]] -->
| |
| | |
| === Using prime factorizations ===
| |
| Greatest common divisors can in principle be computed by determining the [[prime factorization]]s of the two numbers and comparing factors, as in the following example: to compute gcd(18, 84), we find the prime factorizations 18 = 2 · 3<sup>2</sup> and 84 = 2<sup>2</sup> · 3 · 7 and notice that the "overlap" of the two expressions is 2 · 3; so gcd(18, 84) = 6. In practice, this method is only feasible for small numbers; computing prime factorizations in general takes far too long.
| |
| | |
| Here is another concrete example, illustrated by a [[Venn diagram]]. Suppose it is desired to find the greatest common divisor of 48 and 180. First, find the prime factorizations of the two numbers:
| |
| | |
| : 48 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 3,
| |
| : 180 = 2 × 2 × 3 × 3 × 5.
| |
| | |
| What they share in common is two "2"s and a "3":
| |
| | |
| :[[File:least common multiple.svg|300px]]
| |
| | |
| : Least common multiple = 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 3 × 3 × 5 = 720
| |
| : Greatest common divisor = 2 × 2 × 3 = 12.
| |
| | |
| === Using Euclid's algorithm ===
| |
| A much more efficient method is the [[Euclidean algorithm]], which uses a [[division algorithm]] such as [[long division]] in combination with the observation that the gcd of two numbers also divides their difference. To compute gcd(48,18), divide 48 by 18 to get a quotient of 2 and a remainder of 12. Then divide 18 by 12 to get a quotient of 1 and a remainder of 6. Then divide 12 by 6 to get a remainder of 0, which means that 6 is the gcd. Note that we ignored the quotient in each step except to notice when the remainder reached 0, signalling that we had arrived at the answer. Formally the algorithm can be described as:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\gcd(a,0) = a</math>
| |
| :<math>\gcd(a,b) = \gcd(b, a \,\mathrm{mod}\, b)</math>,
| |
| where
| |
| :<math> a \,\mathrm{mod}\, b = a - b \left\lfloor {a \over b} \right\rfloor </math>.
| |
| <!-- \bmod seem to get inadequate spacing, and \: is completely unrecognised by the parser! -->
| |
| | |
| If the arguments are both greater than zero then the algorithm can be written in more elementary terms as follows:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\gcd(a,a) = a</math>
| |
| :<math>\gcd(a,b) = \gcd(a - b,b)\quad,</math> if ''a'' > ''b''
| |
| :<math>\gcd(a,b) = \gcd(a, b-a)\quad,</math> if ''b'' > ''a''
| |
| | |
| ==== Complexity of Euclidean method ====
| |
| | |
| The existence of the Euclidean algorithm places (the [[decision problem]] version of) the greatest common divisor problem in [[P (complexity)|P]], the class of problems solvable in polynomial time. The GCD problem is not known to be in [[NC (complexity)|NC]], and so there is no known way to parallelize its computation across many processors; nor is it known to be [[P-complete]], which would imply that it is unlikely to be possible to parallelize GCD computation. In this sense the GCD problem is analogous to e.g. the [[integer factorization]] problem, which has no known polynomial-time algorithm, but is not known to be [[NP-complete]]. Shallcross et al. showed that a related problem (EUGCD, determining the remainder sequence arising during the Euclidean algorithm) is NC-equivalent to the problem of [[integer linear programming]] with two variables; if either problem is in '''NC''' or is '''P-complete''', the other is as well.<ref>{{cite book |first=D. |last=Shallcross |first2=V. |last2=Pan |first3=Y. |last3=Lin-Kriz |chapter=The NC equivalence of planar integer linear programming and Euclidean GCD |title=34th IEEE Symp. Foundations of Computer Science |year=1993 |pages=557–564 |chapterurl=http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/techreports/tr-92-041.pdf }}</ref> Since '''NC''' contains [[NL (complexity)|NL]], it is also unknown whether a space-efficient algorithm for computing the GCD exists, even for nondeterministic Turing machines.
| |
| | |
| Although the problem is not known to be in '''NC''', parallel algorithms with time superior to the Euclidean algorithm exist; the best known deterministic algorithm is by Chor and Goldreich, which (in the [[CRCW-PRAM]] model) can solve the problem in O(''n''/log ''n'') time with ''n''<sup>1+ε</sup> processors.<ref>{{cite journal |first=B. |last=Chor |first2=O. |last2=Goldreich |title=An improved parallel algorithm for integer GCD |journal=Algorithmica |volume=5 |issue=1–4 |pages=1–10 |year=1990 |doi=10.1007/BF01840374 }}</ref> [[Randomized algorithm]]s can solve the problem in O((log ''n'')<sup>2</sup>) time on <math>\exp\left[O\left(\sqrt{n \log n}\right)\right]</math> processors (note this is [[superpolynomial]]).<ref>{{cite book |first=L. M. |last=Adleman |first2=K. |last2=Kompella |chapter=Using smoothness to achieve parallelism |title=20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing |pages=528–538 |year=1988 |isbn=0-89791-264-0 |location=New York |doi=10.1145/62212.62264 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Binary method===
| |
| | |
| An alternative method of computing the gcd is the binary gcd method which uses only subtraction and division by 2.
| |
| In outline the method is as follows: Let ''a'' and ''b'' be the two non negative integers. Also set the integer ''d'' to 1. There are now four possibilities:
| |
| | |
| * Both ''a'' and ''b'' are even.
| |
| In this case 2 is a common factor. Divide both ''a'' and ''b'' by 2, double ''d'', and continue.
| |
| | |
| * ''a'' is even and ''b'' is odd.
| |
| In this case 2 is not a common factor. Divide ''a'' by 2 and continue.
| |
| | |
| * ''a'' is odd and ''b'' is even.
| |
| Like the previous case 2 is not a common factor. Divide ''b'' by 2 and continue.
| |
| | |
| * Both ''a'' and ''b'' are odd.
| |
| Without loss of generality, assume that for ''a'' and ''b'' as they are now, ''a'' ≥ ''b''. In this case let ''c'' = (''a'' − ''b'')/2. Then gcd(''a'',''b'') = gcd(''a'',''c'') = gcd(''b'',''c''). Because ''b'' ≤ ''a'' it is usually easier (and computationally faster) to determine gcd(''b'',''c''). If computing this algorithm by hand, gcd(''b'',''c'') may be apparent. Otherwise continue the algorithm until ''c'' = 0. Note that the gcd of the ''original a'' and ''b'' is still ''d'' times larger than the gcd of the odd ''a'' and odd ''b'' above. For further details see [[Binary GCD algorithm]].
| |
| | |
| Example: ''a'' = 48, ''b'' = 18, ''d'' = 1 → 24, 9, 2 → 12, 9, 2 → 6, 9, 2 → 3, 9, 2 → ''c'' = 3; since gcd(9,3) = 3, the gcd originally sought is ''d'' times larger, namely 6.
| |
| | |
| === Other methods ===
| |
| | |
| If ''a'' and ''b'' are not both zero, the greatest common divisor of ''a'' and ''b'' can be computed by using [[least common multiple]] (lcm) of ''a'' and ''b'':
| |
| | |
| :<math>\gcd(a,b)=\frac{a\cdot b}{\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)}</math>,
| |
| | |
| but more commonly the lcm is computed from the gcd.
| |
| | |
| Using [[Thomae's function]] ''f'',
| |
| :<math>\gcd(a,b) = a f\left(\frac b a\right),</math>
| |
| which generalizes to ''a'' and ''b'' rational or commensurate reals.
| |
| | |
| Keith Slavin has shown that for odd ''a'' ≥ 1:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\gcd(a,b)=\log_2\prod_{k=0}^{a-1} (1+e^{-2i\pi k b/a})</math>
| |
| | |
| which is a function that can be evaluated for complex ''b''.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Slavin |first=Keith R. |title=Q-Binomials and the Greatest Common Divisor |journal=Integers Electronic Journal of Combinatorial Number Theory |volume=8 |pages=A5 |publisher=[[University of West Georgia]], [[Charles University in Prague]] |year=2008 |url=http://www.integers-ejcnt.org/vol8.html |accessdate=2008-05-26}}</ref> Wolfgang Schramm has shown that
| |
| | |
| :<math>\gcd(a,b)=\sum\limits_{k=1}^a \exp (2\pi ikb/a) \cdot \sum\limits_{d\left| a\right.} \frac{c_d (k)}{d} </math>
| |
| | |
| is an [[entire function]] in the variable ''b'' for all positive integers ''a'' where ''c''<sub>''d''</sub>(''k'') is [[Ramanujan's sum]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Schramm |first=Wolfgang |title=The Fourier transform of functions of the greatest common divisor |journal=Integers Electronic Journal of Combinatorial Number Theory |volume=8 |pages=A50 |publisher=[[University of West Georgia]], [[Charles University in Prague]] |year=2008 |url=http://www.integers-ejcnt.org/vol8.html |accessdate=2008-11-25}}</ref> [[Donald Knuth]] proved the following reduction:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\gcd(2^a-1, 2^b-1)=2^{\gcd(a,b)}-1</math>
| |
| | |
| for non-negative integers ''a'' and ''b'', where ''a'' and ''b'' are not both zero.<ref>{{cite book |first=Donald E. |last=Knuth|title=[[Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science]] |coauthors=R. L. Graham, O. Patashnik |date=March 1994 |publisher=[[Addison-Wesley]] |isbn=0-201-55802-5}}</ref> More generally
| |
| | |
| :<math>\gcd(n^a-1,n^b-1)=n^{\gcd(a,b)}-1 \, </math>
| |
| | |
| which can be proven by considering the Euclidean algorithm in base ''n''. Another useful identity relates <math>\gcd(a,b)</math> to the [[Euler's totient function]]:
| |
| | |
| :<math> \gcd(a,b) = \sum_{k|a \; \hbox{and} \; k|b} \varphi(k). </math>
| |
| | |
| == Properties ==
| |
| *Every common divisor of ''a'' and ''b'' is a divisor of {{nowrap|gcd(''a'', ''b'')}}.
| |
| *{{nowrap|gcd(''a'', ''b'')}}, where ''a'' and ''b'' are not both zero, may be defined alternatively and equivalently as the smallest positive integer ''d'' which can be written in the form {{nowrap|1=''d'' = ''a''·''p'' + ''b''·''q''}}, where ''p'' and ''q'' are integers. This expression is called [[Bézout's identity]]. Numbers ''p'' and ''q'' like this can be computed with the [[extended Euclidean algorithm]].
| |
| *{{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', 0) = |''a''|}}, for {{nowrap|''a'' ≠ 0}}, since any number is a divisor of 0, and the greatest divisor of ''a'' is |''a''|.<ref>{{harvtxt|Pettofrezzo|Byrkit|1970|p=34}}</ref> This is usually used as the base case in the Euclidean algorithm.
| |
| *If ''a'' divides the product ''b''·''c'', and {{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', ''b'') = ''d''}}, then ''a''/''d'' divides ''c''.
| |
| *{{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', ''b''·''c'') = 1}} if and only if {{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', ''b'') = 1}} and {{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', ''c'') = 1}}.
| |
| *If ''m'' is a non-negative integer, then {{nowrap|1=gcd(''m''·''a'', ''m''·''b'') = ''m''·gcd(''a'', ''b'')}}.
| |
| *If ''m'' is any integer, then {{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'' + ''m''·''b'', ''b'') = gcd(''a'', ''b'')}}.
| |
| *If ''m'' is a nonzero common divisor of ''a'' and ''b'', then {{nowrap|1=gcd(''a''/''m'', ''b''/''m'') = gcd(''a'', ''b'')/''m''}}.
| |
| *The gcd is a [[multiplicative function]] in the following sense: if ''a''<sub>1</sub> and ''a''<sub>2</sub> are relatively prime, then {{nowrap|1=gcd(''a''<sub>1</sub>·''a''<sub>2</sub>, ''b'') = gcd(''a''<sub>1</sub>, ''b'')·gcd(''a''<sub>2</sub>, ''b'')}}.
| |
| *The gcd is a [[Commutativity|commutative]] function: {{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', ''b'') = gcd(''b'', ''a'')}}.
| |
| *The gcd is an [[Associativity|associative]] function: {{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', gcd(''b'', ''c'')) = gcd(gcd(''a'', ''b''), ''c'')}}.
| |
| *The gcd of three numbers can be computed as {{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', ''b'', ''c'') = gcd(gcd(''a'', ''b''), ''c'')}}, or in some different way by applying commutativity and associativity. This can be extended to any number of numbers.
| |
| *{{nowrap|gcd(''a'', ''b'')}} is closely related to the [[least common multiple]] {{nowrap|lcm(''a'', ''b'')}}: we have
| |
| ::{{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', ''b'')·lcm(''a'', ''b'') = ''a''·''b''}}.
| |
| :This formula is often used to compute least common multiples: one first computes the gcd with Euclid's algorithm and then divides the product of the given numbers by their gcd.
| |
| *The following versions of [[distributivity]] hold true:
| |
| ::{{nowrap|1=gcd(''a'', lcm(''b'', ''c'')) = lcm(gcd(''a'', ''b''), gcd(''a'', ''c''))}}
| |
| ::{{nowrap|1=lcm(''a'', gcd(''b'', ''c'')) = gcd(lcm(''a'', ''b''), lcm(''a'', ''c''))}}.
| |
| *It is sometimes useful to define {{nowrap|1=gcd(0, 0) = 0}} and {{nowrap|1=lcm(0, 0) = 0}} because then the [[natural number]]s become a [[complete lattice|complete]] [[distributive lattice|distributive]] [[lattice (order)|lattice]] with gcd as meet and lcm as join operation. This extension of the definition is also compatible with the generalization for commutative rings given below.
| |
| *In a [[Cartesian coordinate system]], {{nowrap|gcd(''a'', ''b'')}} can be interpreted as the number of points with integral coordinates on the [[straight line]] joining the points {{nowrap|(0, 0)}} and {{nowrap|(''a'', ''b'')}}, excluding {{nowrap|(0, 0)}}.
| |
| | |
| == Probabilities and expected value ==
| |
| In 1972, [[James E. Nymann]] showed that ''k'' integers, chosen independently and uniformly from {''1'',...,''n''}, are coprime with probability 1/''ζ''(''k'') as ''n'' goes to infinity.<ref name="nymann">{{cite journal |first=J. E. |last=Nymann |title=On the probability that ''k'' positive integers are relatively
| |
| prime |journal=[[Journal of Number Theory]] |volume=4 |issue=5 |pages=469–473 |year=1972 |doi=10.1016/0022-314X(72)90038-8 }}</ref> (See [[coprime]] for a derivation.) This result was extended in 1987 to show that the probability that ''k'' random integers has greatest common divisor ''d'' is ''d''<sup>''-k''</sup>/ζ(''k'').<ref name="chid">{{cite journal |first=J. |last=Chidambaraswamy |first2=R. |last2=Sitarmachandrarao |title=On the probability that the values of ''m'' polynomials have a given g.c.d. |journal=Journal of Number Theory |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=237–245 |year=1987 |doi=10.1016/0022-314X(87)90081-3 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Using this information, the [[expected value]] of the greatest common divisor function can be seen (informally) to not exist when ''k'' = 2. In this case the probability that the gcd equals ''d'' is ''d''<sup>−2</sup>/ζ(2), and since ζ(2) = π<sup>2</sup>/6 we have
| |
| | |
| : <math>\mathrm{E}( \mathrm{2} ) = \sum_{d=1}^\infty d \frac{6}{\pi^2 d^2} = \frac{6}{\pi^2} \sum_{d=1}^\infty \frac{1}{d}.</math>
| |
| | |
| This last summation is the [[Harmonic series (mathematics)|harmonic series]], which diverges. However, when ''k'' ≥ 3, the expected value is well-defined, and by the above argument, it is
| |
| | |
| : <math> \mathrm{E}(k) = \sum_{d=1}^\infty d^{1-k} \zeta(k)^{-1} = \frac{\zeta(k-1)}{\zeta(k)}. </math>
| |
| | |
| For ''k'' = 3, this is approximately equal to 1.3684. For ''k'' = 4, it is approximately 1.1106.
| |
| | |
| == The gcd in commutative rings ==
| |
| | |
| The notion of greatest common divisor can more generally be defined for elements of an arbitrary [[commutative ring]], although in general there need not exist one for every pair of elements.
| |
| | |
| If ''R'' is a commutative ring, and ''a'' and ''b'' are in ''R'', then an element ''d'' of ''R'' is called a ''common divisor'' of ''a'' and ''b'' if it divides both ''a'' and ''b'' (that is, if there are elements ''x'' and ''y'' in ''R'' such that ''d''·''x'' = ''a'' and ''d''·''y'' = ''b'').
| |
| If ''d'' is a common divisor of ''a'' and ''b'', and every common divisor of ''a'' and ''b'' divides ''d'', then ''d'' is called a ''greatest common divisor'' of ''a'' and ''b''.
| |
| | |
| Note that with this definition, two elements ''a'' and ''b'' may very well have several greatest common divisors, or none at all. If ''R'' is an [[integral domain]] then any two gcd's of ''a'' and ''b'' must be [[associate elements]], since by definition either one must divide the other; indeed if a gcd exists, any one of its associates is a gcd as well. Existence of a gcd is not assured in arbitrary integral domains. However if ''R'' is a [[unique factorization domain]], then any two elements have a gcd, and more generally this is true in [[gcd domain]]s.
| |
| If ''R'' is a [[Euclidean domain]] in which euclidean division is given algorithmically (as is the case for instance when ''R'' = ''F''[''X''] where ''F'' is a [[field (mathematics)|field]], or when ''R'' is the ring of [[Gaussian integer]]s), then greatest common divisors can be computed using a form of the Euclidean algorithm based on the division procedure.
| |
| | |
| The following is an example of an integral domain with two elements that do not have a gcd:
| |
| | |
| :<math>R = \mathbb{Z}\left[\sqrt{-3}\,\,\right],\quad a = 4 = 2\cdot 2 = \left(1+\sqrt{-3}\,\,\right)\left(1-\sqrt{-3}\,\,\right),\quad b = \left(1+\sqrt{-3}\,\,\right)\cdot 2.</math>
| |
| | |
| The elements 2 and 1 + √(−3) are two "maximal common divisors" (i.e. any common divisor which is a multiple of 2 is associated to 2, the same holds for 1 + √(−3)), but they are not associated, so there is no greatest common divisor of ''a'' and ''b''.
| |
| | |
| Corresponding to the Bézout property we may, in any commutative ring, consider the collection of elements of the form ''pa'' + ''qb'', where ''p'' and ''q'' range over the ring. This is the [[ideal (ring theory)|ideal]] generated by ''a'' and ''b'', and is denoted simply (''a'', ''b''). In a ring all of whose ideals are principal (a [[principal ideal domain]] or PID), this ideal will be identical with the set of multiples of some ring element ''d''; then this ''d'' is a greatest common divisor of ''a'' and ''b''. But the ideal (''a'', ''b'') can be useful even when there is no greatest common divisor of ''a'' and ''b''. (Indeed, [[Ernst Kummer]] used this ideal as a replacement for a gcd in his treatment of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], although he envisioned it as the set of multiples of some hypothetical, or ''ideal'', ring element ''d'', whence the ring-theoretic term.)
| |
| | |
| == See also ==
| |
| | |
| * [[Binary GCD algorithm]]
| |
| * [[Coprime]]
| |
| * [[Euclidean algorithm]]
| |
| * [[Extended Euclidean algorithm]]
| |
| * [[Least common multiple]]
| |
| * [[Lowest common denominator]]
| |
| * [[Polynomial greatest common divisor]]
| |
| | |
| == Notes ==
| |
| {{reflist}}
| |
| | |
| == References ==
| |
| * {{citation | first1 = Calvin T. | last1 = Long | year = 1972 | title = Elementary Introduction to Number Theory | edition = 2nd | publisher = [[D. C. Heath and Company]] | location = Lexington | lccn = 77-171950 }}
| |
| | |
| * {{citation | first1 = Anthony J. | last1 = Pettofrezzo | first2 = Donald R. | last2 = Byrkit | year = 1970 | title = Elements of Number Theory | publisher = [[Prentice Hall]] | location = Englewood Cliffs | lccn = 77-81766 }}
| |
| | |
| == Further reading ==
| |
| | |
| * [[Donald Knuth]]. ''The Art of Computer Programming'', Volume 2: ''Seminumerical Algorithms'', Third Edition. Addison-Wesley, 1997. ISBN 0-201-89684-2. Section 4.5.2: The Greatest Common Divisor, pp. 333–356.
| |
| * [[Thomas H. Cormen]], [[Charles E. Leiserson]], [[Ronald L. Rivest]], and [[Clifford Stein]]. ''[[Introduction to Algorithms]]'', Second Edition. MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, 2001. ISBN 0-262-03293-7. Section 31.2: Greatest common divisor, pp. 856–862.
| |
| * [[Saunders MacLane]] and [[Garrett Birkhoff]]. ''A Survey of Modern Algebra'', Fourth Edition. MacMillan Publishing Co., 1977. ISBN 0-02-310070-2. 1–7: "The Euclidean Algorithm."
| |
| | |
| == External links ==
| |
| * [http://everything2.com/?node_id=482506 greatest common divisor at Everything2.com]
| |
| * [http://www.stepanovpapers.com/gcd.pdf Greatest Common Measure: The Last 2500 Years], by [[Alexander Stepanov]]
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Multiplicative functions]]
| |