# Prove if x^2 is divisible by a prime p then so is x

Watch
Announcements
#1
I am trying to use the contrapositive by proving if x is NOT divisible by p then neither is x^2.

But I don't know how to it for a general prime p?
0
4 years ago
#2
(Original post by lightningdoritos)
I am trying to use the contrapositive by proving if x is NOT divisible by p then neither is x^2.

But I don't know how to it for a general prime p?
The answer to a question like this depends critically upon where you are starting and what you can assume. For example, If you allow the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, break x down into its prime components and the proof is trivial; slightly less far along the line, if you assume Euclid's lemma, the proof similarly follows immediately. So, what are you allowing as your starting point?
1
4 years ago
#3
Think of the powers of the primes in the prime factorisation of x^2.
0
#4
I'd like to try both but I'm more used to using euclids lemma
0
4 years ago
#5
(Original post by lightningdoritos)
I'd like to try both but I'm more used to using euclids lemma
So the proof follows immediately from Euclid's lemma. However, if you want to prove it in the way you suggest, then use Euclid's lemma to prove the FTofA and then proceed as Zacken has suggested.
0
4 years ago
#6
You can also use strong induction to prove the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. If you wanna be really safe, first use the Well Ordering Principle to prove the Principle of Induction.

(Original post by lightningdoritos)
I'd like to try both but I'm more used to using euclids lemma
0
4 years ago
#7
(Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
You can also use strong induction to prove the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. If you wanna be really safe, first use the Well Ordering Principle to prove the Principle of Induction.
Relax, m9.

Have you been revising too much number theory?
0
4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Zacken)
Relax, m9.

Have you been revising too much number theory?
I mean OP must want to prove it using more than just ftoa or else it's trivial no..
I have indeed, which isn't good because I should be studying the much trickier sets and countability stuff lol
0
4 years ago
#9
(Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
I have indeed, which isn't good because I should be studying the much trickier sets and countability stuff lol
Ooh, those are much more fun than number theory, although, to be fair - I've only done the really basic stuff, cardinal numbers, bijections between this set and that, aleph-naught, etc...

What twisted things are in the course?
0
4 years ago
#10
Didn't we have a question very similar to this a few weeks ago?

I believe the solution related to prime factors.
0
4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Zacken)
Ooh, those are much more fun than number theory, although, to be fair - I've only done the really basic stuff, cardinal numbers, bijections between this set and that, aleph-naught, etc...

What twisted things are in the course?
The stuff is mostly that basic but the past paper questions are not lol, probably because I missed lectures and the notes leave the actually difficult stuff as exercises without solutions. It ties it into the function theory a lot, using injections and inverses and all that in the proofs; there's also power sets, a little bit on transcendental vs algebraic numbers, unions of countable sets; there's the Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem, which I hope they do not ask us to name, and its convoluted proof.
edit: well the proof given is more long and unsatisfying than convoluted
0
4 years ago
#12
(Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
The stuff is mostly that basic but the past paper questions are not lol, probably because I missed lectures and the notes leave the actually difficult stuff as exercises without solutions. It ties it into the function theory a lot, using injections and inverses and all that in the proofs; there's also power sets, a little bit on transcendental vs algebraic numbers, unions of countable sets; there's the Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem, which I hope they do not ask us to name, and its convoluted proof.
edit: well the proof given is more long and unsatisfying than convoluted
This is first term Warwick stuff? Impressive. :-)

How many lectures do you miss?
0
4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Zacken)
This is first term Warwick stuff? Impressive. :-)

How many lectures do you miss?
Yeah but there are also questions on finding nth roots of unity and ones on showing that a number is a root of a polynomial by substitution so it balances out.
To be fair I was very consistent, apart from the super boring physics module I ended up dropping, until maybe the last week when I missed practically everything. Oh and a fair few differential equations ones before that because I lost the will to live trying to follow those lectures...
1
4 years ago
#14
note p|x^2 <-> p^2|x^2
Note in a square each prime factor occurs an even number of times hence atleast divisble by p^2.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (620)
33.68%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (775)
42.1%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (364)
19.77%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (82)
4.45%