The nth root of any positive integer that is greater than 1 and that is not a power of n is irrational, where n is any positive rational number that is not equal to 1/m, where m is any positive integer.
I don't think the conclusion is correct for the reason you state. p divides 1 isn't a contradiction. p divides both a and b implies that either they are equal, one or both are equal to one, or they share at least one prime factor, but due to the gcd being one, this is a contradiction.
when you say that a is a product of primes from 1 to r, why is it that p divides a by some prime (1 to r) it seems to me that you arent considering the case in which the prime p is not a factor of the natural number a? maybe im just confused.
I like your argument, however does the following logic not work more efficiently: Going back to when you first wrote property 'star', it can be seen that b divides a, and so (a,b) = 1 if and only if b = 1, which implies that p = a^n, which implies in turn that p is not prime, and we arrive at our contradiction.
If p|a^n then p|a. This is Euclid's lemma. Your argument is too complicated!
padamianou 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The nth root of any positive integer that is greater than 1 and that is not a power of n is irrational, where n is any positive rational number that is not equal to 1/m, where m is any positive integer.
ILoveYouToThe9999999 1 year ago
Comment removed
ILoveYouToThe9999999 1 year ago
Comment removed
ILoveYouToThe9999999 1 year ago
I don't think the conclusion is correct for the reason you state. p divides 1 isn't a contradiction. p divides both a and b implies that either they are equal, one or both are equal to one, or they share at least one prime factor, but due to the gcd being one, this is a contradiction.
gremlinextreme101 2 years ago
when you say that a is a product of primes from 1 to r, why is it that p divides a by some prime (1 to r) it seems to me that you arent considering the case in which the prime p is not a factor of the natural number a? maybe im just confused.
drexlfoley 2 years ago
Comment removed
rohypnol55 2 years ago
I like your argument, however does the following logic not work more efficiently: Going back to when you first wrote property 'star', it can be seen that b divides a, and so (a,b) = 1 if and only if b = 1, which implies that p = a^n, which implies in turn that p is not prime, and we arrive at our contradiction.
rohypnol55 2 years ago