How can I use Euclid's lemma to prove that if \(p\) is a prime number with \(1\leq k

Mathematics

- anonymous

How can I use Euclid's lemma to prove that if \(p\) is a prime number with \(1\leq k

Mathematics

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions.

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions

- anonymous

How can I use Euclid's lemma to prove that if \(p\) is a prime number with \(1\leq k

Mathematics

- Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com

Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)

- katieb

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

- anonymous

Euclid's lemma states that if \(p|ab\), then \(p|a\) and/or \(p|b\).

- anonymous

Do you want me to show you what I have so far?

- asnaseer

surely p! (in the numerator) is ALWAYS divisible by p?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

- anonymous

Proof:\[\frac{p!}{k!(p-k)!}=\frac{1\cdot2\cdot...\cdot(p-1)\cdot p}{1\cdot2\cdot...\cdot k\cdot[1\cdot2\cdot...\cdot(p-k-1)\cdot(p-k)]}.\]However, since \(0

- asnaseer

yes - that is what I was trying to say in the earlier statement.

- anonymous

But my mentor is asking me to use Euclid's lemma. :/

- asnaseer

ok - let me think about it...

- asnaseer

ok, maybe something like this:
if p is prime, then none of the integers in k! or (p-k)! can be factors of p
therefore all the integers in k! and (p-k)! must be relatively prime to p
hmmm - I can't see quite how to use Euclids Lemma here.
The lemma itself states that:
For two integers a and b, suppose d|ab. Then if d is relatively prime to a, then d divides b.

- asnaseer

ah - hang on, maybe this will work:\[\frac{p!}{k!(p-k)!}=p\times\frac{(p-1)!}{k!(p-k)!}\]now we know that k!(p-k)! is relatively prime to p, therefore k!(p-k)! divides (p-1)!

- anonymous

Oh! I didn't think of separating the fraction like that.

- asnaseer

yes I think that works with one change in the statement:
now we know that all the integers in k!(p-k)! are relatively prime to p, therefore some of the integers in k!(p-k)! must divide (p-1)!

- anonymous

I can't thank you enough for your help, but I'm a little confused: doesn't Euclid's lemma first assume that d|ab? That's what we're trying to show. :/

- asnaseer

hmmm.. - good point - needs more thought...

- anonymous

I don't know. I mean, maybe my professor skimmed through this problem because wouldn't simply showing that\[\frac{p!}{k!(p-k)!}=p\cdot\frac{(p-1)!}{k!(p-k)!}\]immediately imply that the whole thing is divisible by \(p\)?

- asnaseer

yes - you are right. maybe there is something he forgot to state about the problem.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.