Greatest common Divisor of negative numbers












3












$begingroup$


To find gcd of negative numbers we can convert it to positive number and then find out the gcd. Will it make any difference?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    well, take for instance $15,21$, the greatest common divisor is $3$, now the greatest common divisor between $-15,-21$ is still $3$ which is also the greatest common divisor for $15,-21$ and $-15,21$ so no it will not make a difference
    $endgroup$
    – alkabary
    Jun 4 '15 at 9:06
















3












$begingroup$


To find gcd of negative numbers we can convert it to positive number and then find out the gcd. Will it make any difference?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    well, take for instance $15,21$, the greatest common divisor is $3$, now the greatest common divisor between $-15,-21$ is still $3$ which is also the greatest common divisor for $15,-21$ and $-15,21$ so no it will not make a difference
    $endgroup$
    – alkabary
    Jun 4 '15 at 9:06














3












3








3


2



$begingroup$


To find gcd of negative numbers we can convert it to positive number and then find out the gcd. Will it make any difference?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




To find gcd of negative numbers we can convert it to positive number and then find out the gcd. Will it make any difference?







elementary-number-theory divisibility greatest-common-divisor






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jun 17 '15 at 5:19









Martin Sleziak

44.7k10119272




44.7k10119272










asked Jun 4 '15 at 9:02









Vasu Dev GargVasu Dev Garg

2016




2016












  • $begingroup$
    well, take for instance $15,21$, the greatest common divisor is $3$, now the greatest common divisor between $-15,-21$ is still $3$ which is also the greatest common divisor for $15,-21$ and $-15,21$ so no it will not make a difference
    $endgroup$
    – alkabary
    Jun 4 '15 at 9:06


















  • $begingroup$
    well, take for instance $15,21$, the greatest common divisor is $3$, now the greatest common divisor between $-15,-21$ is still $3$ which is also the greatest common divisor for $15,-21$ and $-15,21$ so no it will not make a difference
    $endgroup$
    – alkabary
    Jun 4 '15 at 9:06
















$begingroup$
well, take for instance $15,21$, the greatest common divisor is $3$, now the greatest common divisor between $-15,-21$ is still $3$ which is also the greatest common divisor for $15,-21$ and $-15,21$ so no it will not make a difference
$endgroup$
– alkabary
Jun 4 '15 at 9:06




$begingroup$
well, take for instance $15,21$, the greatest common divisor is $3$, now the greatest common divisor between $-15,-21$ is still $3$ which is also the greatest common divisor for $15,-21$ and $-15,21$ so no it will not make a difference
$endgroup$
– alkabary
Jun 4 '15 at 9:06










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

It will not make any difference if $gcd(a,b) = d$ then $d mid a$ and $d mid b$ and if there exists another integer $c mid a,b$ then $c mid d$. Now , $d mid -a,-b$ as well and if $c mid -a,-b$ then $ c mid d$ and so $$d = gcd(-a,-b) = gcd(-a,b) = gcd(a,-b) = gcd(a,b)$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    No.



    If $langle a,brangleinmathbb Ztimesmathbb Z-{langle0,0rangle}$ then $gcdleft(a,bright)$
    can be defined as the smallest positive element of set $left{ ra+sbmid r,sinmathbb{Z}right} $.



    Note that this set remains the same if $a$ is replaced by $-a$ and/or
    $b$ is replaced by $-b$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      2












      $begingroup$

      In the general theory of greatest common divisor we can define an element $d$ to be a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ if




      1. $d$ divides both $a$ and $b$

      2. for all $c$, if $c$ divides both $a$ and $b$, then $c$ divides $d$.


      If we stick to the natural numbers, we see that a unique greatest common divisor exists for all pairs of numbers.



      The situation is more complicated when we try to extend the theory to arbitrary integral domains.



      If we go to the integers, there are generally two. For instance, if $a=4$ and $b=6$, both $2$ and $-2$ satisfy the conditions above.



      It's even worse in the case of polynomials (say over the reals): if we consider $f(X)=X^2-3X+2$ and $g(X)=X^2-X$, then any polynomial of the form $a(X-1)$ (for a real $ane0$) satisfies the conditions for being a greatest common divisor.



      What happens is that whenever $d$ is a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ and $u$ is an invertible element, then also $ud$ is a greatest common divisor as well.



      It's however easy to show that, in an integral domain, if a greatest common divisor $d$ of $a$ and $b$ exists, then any other is of the form $ud$ for $u$ an invertible element.



      In some cases we are able to add a further condition to guarantee uniqueness. For instance, in the integers we can impose that a greatest common divisor should be nonnegative; in the ring of polynomials over the reals (or any field), uniqueness is usually guaranteed by choosing the monic greatest common divisor (with the exception of the greatest common divisor of $0$ and $0$, which is of course $0$).



      In the ring of Gaussian integers $mathbb{Z}[i]$ the invertible elements are $1$, $-1$, $i$ and $-i$ and there's no sensible way to define a greatest common divisor so as to get some uniqueness.



      As you see, it's a matter of conventions. It's better if we can add a condition that gives uniqueness, so we can define a bona fide operation, but actually it doesn't really matter from the theoretical point of view.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$





















        0












        $begingroup$

        I'm perfectly content with the answer given by @drhab .



        But I can't get that, for $ a,b $ any two positive integers given, if $ gcd(a,b) = d $ then $ gcd(a,b) = -d $ too. Appearently, I have a problem with the word "greatest", which here isn't assigned as a term to indicate any ordering; and this feels wrong with our elementary definitions.



        Can you validate me please?






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$









        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Nowhere in drhabs answer does s/he say $gcd(a,b)=pm d$. Indeed what s/he said was, in essence $gcd(pm a, pm b) = |d|$. THe terms $a,$ and $b$ that you are finding the greatest common divisor OF make no difference whether they are positive or negatives. But $d$, the number that IS the greatest common divisor must be positive.
          $endgroup$
          – fleablood
          Dec 27 '18 at 5:32










        • $begingroup$
          @fleablood Actually, I was refering to my own book. Yes, I said that the answer drhab gave defines concisely every aspect of the situation, in the most general theoretical notation. Indeed, the other answer given by alkabary shows it all: $ d = gcd(a,b) $ if (1) $ d | a $ and $ d | b $ and (2) if any other $ d_2 = gcd(a,b) $ exists, then $ d_2 | d $.So suppose we really have a $ c = gcd(a,b) $ which is known to be also $ d $; then $ c | d $, and $ d | c $ too. so $ c = +/- d $. So theory says: The gcd is defined up to sign.
          $endgroup$
          – freehumorist
          Dec 27 '18 at 5:50






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Then I don't understand what you are asking. If $c$ "is known to be $d$" then $c=d$. and we don't have check whether $c|d$ or $d|c$. If on the other hand we are told $c|d$ and $d|c$ then we can conclude $c = pm d$ and that has nothing to do with $a,b$. If we are told $c=gcd(a,b)$ then we know $c$ is positive but we don't know if $d$ is.
          $endgroup$
          – fleablood
          Dec 27 '18 at 6:39













        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%2f1311718%2fgreatest-common-divisor-of-negative-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        3












        $begingroup$

        It will not make any difference if $gcd(a,b) = d$ then $d mid a$ and $d mid b$ and if there exists another integer $c mid a,b$ then $c mid d$. Now , $d mid -a,-b$ as well and if $c mid -a,-b$ then $ c mid d$ and so $$d = gcd(-a,-b) = gcd(-a,b) = gcd(a,-b) = gcd(a,b)$$






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$


















          3












          $begingroup$

          It will not make any difference if $gcd(a,b) = d$ then $d mid a$ and $d mid b$ and if there exists another integer $c mid a,b$ then $c mid d$. Now , $d mid -a,-b$ as well and if $c mid -a,-b$ then $ c mid d$ and so $$d = gcd(-a,-b) = gcd(-a,b) = gcd(a,-b) = gcd(a,b)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$
















            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            It will not make any difference if $gcd(a,b) = d$ then $d mid a$ and $d mid b$ and if there exists another integer $c mid a,b$ then $c mid d$. Now , $d mid -a,-b$ as well and if $c mid -a,-b$ then $ c mid d$ and so $$d = gcd(-a,-b) = gcd(-a,b) = gcd(a,-b) = gcd(a,b)$$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            It will not make any difference if $gcd(a,b) = d$ then $d mid a$ and $d mid b$ and if there exists another integer $c mid a,b$ then $c mid d$. Now , $d mid -a,-b$ as well and if $c mid -a,-b$ then $ c mid d$ and so $$d = gcd(-a,-b) = gcd(-a,b) = gcd(a,-b) = gcd(a,b)$$







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jun 4 '15 at 9:10









            alkabaryalkabary

            4,1041541




            4,1041541























                2












                $begingroup$

                No.



                If $langle a,brangleinmathbb Ztimesmathbb Z-{langle0,0rangle}$ then $gcdleft(a,bright)$
                can be defined as the smallest positive element of set $left{ ra+sbmid r,sinmathbb{Z}right} $.



                Note that this set remains the same if $a$ is replaced by $-a$ and/or
                $b$ is replaced by $-b$.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  No.



                  If $langle a,brangleinmathbb Ztimesmathbb Z-{langle0,0rangle}$ then $gcdleft(a,bright)$
                  can be defined as the smallest positive element of set $left{ ra+sbmid r,sinmathbb{Z}right} $.



                  Note that this set remains the same if $a$ is replaced by $-a$ and/or
                  $b$ is replaced by $-b$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    2












                    2








                    2





                    $begingroup$

                    No.



                    If $langle a,brangleinmathbb Ztimesmathbb Z-{langle0,0rangle}$ then $gcdleft(a,bright)$
                    can be defined as the smallest positive element of set $left{ ra+sbmid r,sinmathbb{Z}right} $.



                    Note that this set remains the same if $a$ is replaced by $-a$ and/or
                    $b$ is replaced by $-b$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    No.



                    If $langle a,brangleinmathbb Ztimesmathbb Z-{langle0,0rangle}$ then $gcdleft(a,bright)$
                    can be defined as the smallest positive element of set $left{ ra+sbmid r,sinmathbb{Z}right} $.



                    Note that this set remains the same if $a$ is replaced by $-a$ and/or
                    $b$ is replaced by $-b$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jun 4 '15 at 9:08









                    drhabdrhab

                    102k545136




                    102k545136























                        2












                        $begingroup$

                        In the general theory of greatest common divisor we can define an element $d$ to be a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ if




                        1. $d$ divides both $a$ and $b$

                        2. for all $c$, if $c$ divides both $a$ and $b$, then $c$ divides $d$.


                        If we stick to the natural numbers, we see that a unique greatest common divisor exists for all pairs of numbers.



                        The situation is more complicated when we try to extend the theory to arbitrary integral domains.



                        If we go to the integers, there are generally two. For instance, if $a=4$ and $b=6$, both $2$ and $-2$ satisfy the conditions above.



                        It's even worse in the case of polynomials (say over the reals): if we consider $f(X)=X^2-3X+2$ and $g(X)=X^2-X$, then any polynomial of the form $a(X-1)$ (for a real $ane0$) satisfies the conditions for being a greatest common divisor.



                        What happens is that whenever $d$ is a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ and $u$ is an invertible element, then also $ud$ is a greatest common divisor as well.



                        It's however easy to show that, in an integral domain, if a greatest common divisor $d$ of $a$ and $b$ exists, then any other is of the form $ud$ for $u$ an invertible element.



                        In some cases we are able to add a further condition to guarantee uniqueness. For instance, in the integers we can impose that a greatest common divisor should be nonnegative; in the ring of polynomials over the reals (or any field), uniqueness is usually guaranteed by choosing the monic greatest common divisor (with the exception of the greatest common divisor of $0$ and $0$, which is of course $0$).



                        In the ring of Gaussian integers $mathbb{Z}[i]$ the invertible elements are $1$, $-1$, $i$ and $-i$ and there's no sensible way to define a greatest common divisor so as to get some uniqueness.



                        As you see, it's a matter of conventions. It's better if we can add a condition that gives uniqueness, so we can define a bona fide operation, but actually it doesn't really matter from the theoretical point of view.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$


















                          2












                          $begingroup$

                          In the general theory of greatest common divisor we can define an element $d$ to be a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ if




                          1. $d$ divides both $a$ and $b$

                          2. for all $c$, if $c$ divides both $a$ and $b$, then $c$ divides $d$.


                          If we stick to the natural numbers, we see that a unique greatest common divisor exists for all pairs of numbers.



                          The situation is more complicated when we try to extend the theory to arbitrary integral domains.



                          If we go to the integers, there are generally two. For instance, if $a=4$ and $b=6$, both $2$ and $-2$ satisfy the conditions above.



                          It's even worse in the case of polynomials (say over the reals): if we consider $f(X)=X^2-3X+2$ and $g(X)=X^2-X$, then any polynomial of the form $a(X-1)$ (for a real $ane0$) satisfies the conditions for being a greatest common divisor.



                          What happens is that whenever $d$ is a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ and $u$ is an invertible element, then also $ud$ is a greatest common divisor as well.



                          It's however easy to show that, in an integral domain, if a greatest common divisor $d$ of $a$ and $b$ exists, then any other is of the form $ud$ for $u$ an invertible element.



                          In some cases we are able to add a further condition to guarantee uniqueness. For instance, in the integers we can impose that a greatest common divisor should be nonnegative; in the ring of polynomials over the reals (or any field), uniqueness is usually guaranteed by choosing the monic greatest common divisor (with the exception of the greatest common divisor of $0$ and $0$, which is of course $0$).



                          In the ring of Gaussian integers $mathbb{Z}[i]$ the invertible elements are $1$, $-1$, $i$ and $-i$ and there's no sensible way to define a greatest common divisor so as to get some uniqueness.



                          As you see, it's a matter of conventions. It's better if we can add a condition that gives uniqueness, so we can define a bona fide operation, but actually it doesn't really matter from the theoretical point of view.






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$
















                            2












                            2








                            2





                            $begingroup$

                            In the general theory of greatest common divisor we can define an element $d$ to be a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ if




                            1. $d$ divides both $a$ and $b$

                            2. for all $c$, if $c$ divides both $a$ and $b$, then $c$ divides $d$.


                            If we stick to the natural numbers, we see that a unique greatest common divisor exists for all pairs of numbers.



                            The situation is more complicated when we try to extend the theory to arbitrary integral domains.



                            If we go to the integers, there are generally two. For instance, if $a=4$ and $b=6$, both $2$ and $-2$ satisfy the conditions above.



                            It's even worse in the case of polynomials (say over the reals): if we consider $f(X)=X^2-3X+2$ and $g(X)=X^2-X$, then any polynomial of the form $a(X-1)$ (for a real $ane0$) satisfies the conditions for being a greatest common divisor.



                            What happens is that whenever $d$ is a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ and $u$ is an invertible element, then also $ud$ is a greatest common divisor as well.



                            It's however easy to show that, in an integral domain, if a greatest common divisor $d$ of $a$ and $b$ exists, then any other is of the form $ud$ for $u$ an invertible element.



                            In some cases we are able to add a further condition to guarantee uniqueness. For instance, in the integers we can impose that a greatest common divisor should be nonnegative; in the ring of polynomials over the reals (or any field), uniqueness is usually guaranteed by choosing the monic greatest common divisor (with the exception of the greatest common divisor of $0$ and $0$, which is of course $0$).



                            In the ring of Gaussian integers $mathbb{Z}[i]$ the invertible elements are $1$, $-1$, $i$ and $-i$ and there's no sensible way to define a greatest common divisor so as to get some uniqueness.



                            As you see, it's a matter of conventions. It's better if we can add a condition that gives uniqueness, so we can define a bona fide operation, but actually it doesn't really matter from the theoretical point of view.






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$



                            In the general theory of greatest common divisor we can define an element $d$ to be a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ if




                            1. $d$ divides both $a$ and $b$

                            2. for all $c$, if $c$ divides both $a$ and $b$, then $c$ divides $d$.


                            If we stick to the natural numbers, we see that a unique greatest common divisor exists for all pairs of numbers.



                            The situation is more complicated when we try to extend the theory to arbitrary integral domains.



                            If we go to the integers, there are generally two. For instance, if $a=4$ and $b=6$, both $2$ and $-2$ satisfy the conditions above.



                            It's even worse in the case of polynomials (say over the reals): if we consider $f(X)=X^2-3X+2$ and $g(X)=X^2-X$, then any polynomial of the form $a(X-1)$ (for a real $ane0$) satisfies the conditions for being a greatest common divisor.



                            What happens is that whenever $d$ is a greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ and $u$ is an invertible element, then also $ud$ is a greatest common divisor as well.



                            It's however easy to show that, in an integral domain, if a greatest common divisor $d$ of $a$ and $b$ exists, then any other is of the form $ud$ for $u$ an invertible element.



                            In some cases we are able to add a further condition to guarantee uniqueness. For instance, in the integers we can impose that a greatest common divisor should be nonnegative; in the ring of polynomials over the reals (or any field), uniqueness is usually guaranteed by choosing the monic greatest common divisor (with the exception of the greatest common divisor of $0$ and $0$, which is of course $0$).



                            In the ring of Gaussian integers $mathbb{Z}[i]$ the invertible elements are $1$, $-1$, $i$ and $-i$ and there's no sensible way to define a greatest common divisor so as to get some uniqueness.



                            As you see, it's a matter of conventions. It's better if we can add a condition that gives uniqueness, so we can define a bona fide operation, but actually it doesn't really matter from the theoretical point of view.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Jun 4 '15 at 9:51

























                            answered Jun 4 '15 at 9:44









                            egregegreg

                            183k1486204




                            183k1486204























                                0












                                $begingroup$

                                I'm perfectly content with the answer given by @drhab .



                                But I can't get that, for $ a,b $ any two positive integers given, if $ gcd(a,b) = d $ then $ gcd(a,b) = -d $ too. Appearently, I have a problem with the word "greatest", which here isn't assigned as a term to indicate any ordering; and this feels wrong with our elementary definitions.



                                Can you validate me please?






                                share|cite|improve this answer









                                $endgroup$









                                • 1




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Nowhere in drhabs answer does s/he say $gcd(a,b)=pm d$. Indeed what s/he said was, in essence $gcd(pm a, pm b) = |d|$. THe terms $a,$ and $b$ that you are finding the greatest common divisor OF make no difference whether they are positive or negatives. But $d$, the number that IS the greatest common divisor must be positive.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – fleablood
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 5:32










                                • $begingroup$
                                  @fleablood Actually, I was refering to my own book. Yes, I said that the answer drhab gave defines concisely every aspect of the situation, in the most general theoretical notation. Indeed, the other answer given by alkabary shows it all: $ d = gcd(a,b) $ if (1) $ d | a $ and $ d | b $ and (2) if any other $ d_2 = gcd(a,b) $ exists, then $ d_2 | d $.So suppose we really have a $ c = gcd(a,b) $ which is known to be also $ d $; then $ c | d $, and $ d | c $ too. so $ c = +/- d $. So theory says: The gcd is defined up to sign.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – freehumorist
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 5:50






                                • 1




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Then I don't understand what you are asking. If $c$ "is known to be $d$" then $c=d$. and we don't have check whether $c|d$ or $d|c$. If on the other hand we are told $c|d$ and $d|c$ then we can conclude $c = pm d$ and that has nothing to do with $a,b$. If we are told $c=gcd(a,b)$ then we know $c$ is positive but we don't know if $d$ is.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – fleablood
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 6:39


















                                0












                                $begingroup$

                                I'm perfectly content with the answer given by @drhab .



                                But I can't get that, for $ a,b $ any two positive integers given, if $ gcd(a,b) = d $ then $ gcd(a,b) = -d $ too. Appearently, I have a problem with the word "greatest", which here isn't assigned as a term to indicate any ordering; and this feels wrong with our elementary definitions.



                                Can you validate me please?






                                share|cite|improve this answer









                                $endgroup$









                                • 1




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Nowhere in drhabs answer does s/he say $gcd(a,b)=pm d$. Indeed what s/he said was, in essence $gcd(pm a, pm b) = |d|$. THe terms $a,$ and $b$ that you are finding the greatest common divisor OF make no difference whether they are positive or negatives. But $d$, the number that IS the greatest common divisor must be positive.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – fleablood
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 5:32










                                • $begingroup$
                                  @fleablood Actually, I was refering to my own book. Yes, I said that the answer drhab gave defines concisely every aspect of the situation, in the most general theoretical notation. Indeed, the other answer given by alkabary shows it all: $ d = gcd(a,b) $ if (1) $ d | a $ and $ d | b $ and (2) if any other $ d_2 = gcd(a,b) $ exists, then $ d_2 | d $.So suppose we really have a $ c = gcd(a,b) $ which is known to be also $ d $; then $ c | d $, and $ d | c $ too. so $ c = +/- d $. So theory says: The gcd is defined up to sign.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – freehumorist
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 5:50






                                • 1




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Then I don't understand what you are asking. If $c$ "is known to be $d$" then $c=d$. and we don't have check whether $c|d$ or $d|c$. If on the other hand we are told $c|d$ and $d|c$ then we can conclude $c = pm d$ and that has nothing to do with $a,b$. If we are told $c=gcd(a,b)$ then we know $c$ is positive but we don't know if $d$ is.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – fleablood
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 6:39
















                                0












                                0








                                0





                                $begingroup$

                                I'm perfectly content with the answer given by @drhab .



                                But I can't get that, for $ a,b $ any two positive integers given, if $ gcd(a,b) = d $ then $ gcd(a,b) = -d $ too. Appearently, I have a problem with the word "greatest", which here isn't assigned as a term to indicate any ordering; and this feels wrong with our elementary definitions.



                                Can you validate me please?






                                share|cite|improve this answer









                                $endgroup$



                                I'm perfectly content with the answer given by @drhab .



                                But I can't get that, for $ a,b $ any two positive integers given, if $ gcd(a,b) = d $ then $ gcd(a,b) = -d $ too. Appearently, I have a problem with the word "greatest", which here isn't assigned as a term to indicate any ordering; and this feels wrong with our elementary definitions.



                                Can you validate me please?







                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                answered Dec 27 '18 at 5:11









                                freehumoristfreehumorist

                                351214




                                351214








                                • 1




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Nowhere in drhabs answer does s/he say $gcd(a,b)=pm d$. Indeed what s/he said was, in essence $gcd(pm a, pm b) = |d|$. THe terms $a,$ and $b$ that you are finding the greatest common divisor OF make no difference whether they are positive or negatives. But $d$, the number that IS the greatest common divisor must be positive.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – fleablood
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 5:32










                                • $begingroup$
                                  @fleablood Actually, I was refering to my own book. Yes, I said that the answer drhab gave defines concisely every aspect of the situation, in the most general theoretical notation. Indeed, the other answer given by alkabary shows it all: $ d = gcd(a,b) $ if (1) $ d | a $ and $ d | b $ and (2) if any other $ d_2 = gcd(a,b) $ exists, then $ d_2 | d $.So suppose we really have a $ c = gcd(a,b) $ which is known to be also $ d $; then $ c | d $, and $ d | c $ too. so $ c = +/- d $. So theory says: The gcd is defined up to sign.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – freehumorist
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 5:50






                                • 1




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Then I don't understand what you are asking. If $c$ "is known to be $d$" then $c=d$. and we don't have check whether $c|d$ or $d|c$. If on the other hand we are told $c|d$ and $d|c$ then we can conclude $c = pm d$ and that has nothing to do with $a,b$. If we are told $c=gcd(a,b)$ then we know $c$ is positive but we don't know if $d$ is.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – fleablood
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 6:39
















                                • 1




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Nowhere in drhabs answer does s/he say $gcd(a,b)=pm d$. Indeed what s/he said was, in essence $gcd(pm a, pm b) = |d|$. THe terms $a,$ and $b$ that you are finding the greatest common divisor OF make no difference whether they are positive or negatives. But $d$, the number that IS the greatest common divisor must be positive.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – fleablood
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 5:32










                                • $begingroup$
                                  @fleablood Actually, I was refering to my own book. Yes, I said that the answer drhab gave defines concisely every aspect of the situation, in the most general theoretical notation. Indeed, the other answer given by alkabary shows it all: $ d = gcd(a,b) $ if (1) $ d | a $ and $ d | b $ and (2) if any other $ d_2 = gcd(a,b) $ exists, then $ d_2 | d $.So suppose we really have a $ c = gcd(a,b) $ which is known to be also $ d $; then $ c | d $, and $ d | c $ too. so $ c = +/- d $. So theory says: The gcd is defined up to sign.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – freehumorist
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 5:50






                                • 1




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Then I don't understand what you are asking. If $c$ "is known to be $d$" then $c=d$. and we don't have check whether $c|d$ or $d|c$. If on the other hand we are told $c|d$ and $d|c$ then we can conclude $c = pm d$ and that has nothing to do with $a,b$. If we are told $c=gcd(a,b)$ then we know $c$ is positive but we don't know if $d$ is.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – fleablood
                                  Dec 27 '18 at 6:39










                                1




                                1




                                $begingroup$
                                Nowhere in drhabs answer does s/he say $gcd(a,b)=pm d$. Indeed what s/he said was, in essence $gcd(pm a, pm b) = |d|$. THe terms $a,$ and $b$ that you are finding the greatest common divisor OF make no difference whether they are positive or negatives. But $d$, the number that IS the greatest common divisor must be positive.
                                $endgroup$
                                – fleablood
                                Dec 27 '18 at 5:32




                                $begingroup$
                                Nowhere in drhabs answer does s/he say $gcd(a,b)=pm d$. Indeed what s/he said was, in essence $gcd(pm a, pm b) = |d|$. THe terms $a,$ and $b$ that you are finding the greatest common divisor OF make no difference whether they are positive or negatives. But $d$, the number that IS the greatest common divisor must be positive.
                                $endgroup$
                                – fleablood
                                Dec 27 '18 at 5:32












                                $begingroup$
                                @fleablood Actually, I was refering to my own book. Yes, I said that the answer drhab gave defines concisely every aspect of the situation, in the most general theoretical notation. Indeed, the other answer given by alkabary shows it all: $ d = gcd(a,b) $ if (1) $ d | a $ and $ d | b $ and (2) if any other $ d_2 = gcd(a,b) $ exists, then $ d_2 | d $.So suppose we really have a $ c = gcd(a,b) $ which is known to be also $ d $; then $ c | d $, and $ d | c $ too. so $ c = +/- d $. So theory says: The gcd is defined up to sign.
                                $endgroup$
                                – freehumorist
                                Dec 27 '18 at 5:50




                                $begingroup$
                                @fleablood Actually, I was refering to my own book. Yes, I said that the answer drhab gave defines concisely every aspect of the situation, in the most general theoretical notation. Indeed, the other answer given by alkabary shows it all: $ d = gcd(a,b) $ if (1) $ d | a $ and $ d | b $ and (2) if any other $ d_2 = gcd(a,b) $ exists, then $ d_2 | d $.So suppose we really have a $ c = gcd(a,b) $ which is known to be also $ d $; then $ c | d $, and $ d | c $ too. so $ c = +/- d $. So theory says: The gcd is defined up to sign.
                                $endgroup$
                                – freehumorist
                                Dec 27 '18 at 5:50




                                1




                                1




                                $begingroup$
                                Then I don't understand what you are asking. If $c$ "is known to be $d$" then $c=d$. and we don't have check whether $c|d$ or $d|c$. If on the other hand we are told $c|d$ and $d|c$ then we can conclude $c = pm d$ and that has nothing to do with $a,b$. If we are told $c=gcd(a,b)$ then we know $c$ is positive but we don't know if $d$ is.
                                $endgroup$
                                – fleablood
                                Dec 27 '18 at 6:39






                                $begingroup$
                                Then I don't understand what you are asking. If $c$ "is known to be $d$" then $c=d$. and we don't have check whether $c|d$ or $d|c$. If on the other hand we are told $c|d$ and $d|c$ then we can conclude $c = pm d$ and that has nothing to do with $a,b$. If we are told $c=gcd(a,b)$ then we know $c$ is positive but we don't know if $d$ is.
                                $endgroup$
                                – fleablood
                                Dec 27 '18 at 6:39




















                                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%2f1311718%2fgreatest-common-divisor-of-negative-numbers%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

                                Ellipse (mathématiques)

                                Quarter-circle Tiles

                                Mont Emei