The Student Room Group

Co-prime Notation

Quick question. Say you're proving 3\sqrt 3 is irrational or something similar, can you express gcd(a,b)=1\mathrm{gcd(a,b)=1} as aba \perp b? We weren't taught the notation, so not sure if I'm using it correctly.
Reply 1
I've never seen it before, but Wikipedia appears to use it. Personally I write (a,b)(a,b) instead of gcd(a,b)\text{gcd}(a,b), and so I'd just write (a,b)=1(a,b)=1. Little confusion will be caused by this notation in a number theoretic context.
Reply 2
Original post by nuodai
I've never seen it before, but Wikipedia appears to use it. Personally I write (a,b)(a,b) instead of gcd(a,b)\text{gcd}(a,b), and so I'd just write (a,b)=1(a,b)=1. Little confusion will be caused by this notation in a number theoretic context.


Ah, I thought it might be standard notation and wanted the proof to look a bit more professional. Perhaps I should stick to the former if he hasn't taught it this way.
Reply 3
Original post by Brit_Miller
Ah, I thought it might be standard notation and wanted the proof to look a bit more professional. Perhaps I should stick to the former if he hasn't taught it this way.


If you're doing something for uni (e.g. exam, coursework), don't introduce notation which isn't in your course unless you explain what it is first. If you were to say "write aba \perp b to denote gcd(a,b)=1\text{gcd}(a,b)=1" then that would be fine, but you shouldn't assume that an examiner will know what you mean if the notation isn't introduced in your lecture notes.
Reply 4
Original post by nuodai
If you're doing something for uni (e.g. exam, coursework), don't introduce notation which isn't in your course unless you explain what it is first. If you were to say "write aba \perp b to denote gcd(a,b)=1\text{gcd}(a,b)=1" then that would be fine, but you shouldn't assume that an examiner will know what you mean if the notation isn't introduced in your lecture notes.


Aye, I'll definitely just use the former. Thanks for the help! :smile:
Reply 5
Original post by Brit_Miller
Ah, I thought it might be standard notation and wanted the proof to look a bit more professional. Perhaps I should stick to the former if he hasn't taught it this way.


Professional mathematical writing eschews excessive symbology. It is a common mistake of the amateur to try and abbreviate everything. Nothing looks worse than, for example, statements abbreviated like the following:
Unparseable latex formula:

\forall a,b \in \mathbb{Z}, \exists ! c \in \mathbb{Z} \mbox{ such that... }

etc.

Just write 'aa and bb are coprime.'
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 6
Original post by Jake22
Professional mathematical writing eschews excessive symbology. It is a common mistake of the amateur to try and abbreviate everything. Nothing looks worse than, for example, statements abbreviated like the following:
Unparseable latex formula:

\forall a,b \in \mathbb{Z}, \exists ! c \in \mathbb{Z} \mbox{ such that... }

etc.

Just write 'aa and bb are coprime.'


Why do they teach us to write like that then? :confused:
Reply 7
Original post by Brit_Miller
Why do they teach us to write like that then? :confused:


For the purpose of making short hand notes or writing on blackboards. Quantifiers also have their use in defining, say, a predicated set that involves more than one quantifier.

I mean, you were presumably taught at primary school that one can abbreviate 'and' by using the ampersand symbol. I am sure that you were also made aware that in an essay or suchlike, you were still expected to use the full word 'and' rather than '&'. Same rules apply.

I don't think that anyone would suggest that you hand in a piece of written work with, for example, sentences that start with symbols.

Look in any maths book. They mostly use words - not just a collection of symbols. In the statement of lemmata, propositions and theorems in particular, one tends to use symbols and abbreviations only where it saves a lot of space and makes for increased readability.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by Jake22
For the purpose of making short hand notes or writing on blackboards. Quantifiers also have their use in defining, say, a predicated set that involves more than one quantifier.

I mean, you were presumably taught at primary school that one can abbreviate 'and' by using the ampersand symbol. I am sure that you were also made aware that in an essay or suchlike, you were still expected to use the full word 'and' rather than '&'. Same rules apply.

I don't think that anyone would suggest that you hand in a piece of written work with, for example, sentences that start with symbols.

Look in any maths book. They mostly use words - not just a collection of symbols. In the statement of lemmata, propositions and theorems in particular, one tends to use symbols and abbreviations only where it saves a lot of space and makes for increased readability.


Our lecturer actually encouraged us to write our proofs using all the shorthand notation - though they're only short proofs. Maybe it's just to make sure we understand what they mean and use them correctly.
Reply 9
Original post by Brit_Miller
Our lecturer actually encouraged us to write our proofs using all the shorthand notation - though they're only short proofs. Maybe it's just to make sure we understand what they mean and use them correctly.


I would guess that your last sentence is the motivation - he is treating it as an exercise in familiarising yourselves with the notation.

Quick Reply

Latest