Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It will be now shown that this when R is a factorial ring, and $a_{1},…,a_{k}$ in R are not all 0. Then

$a_{1},…,a_{k}$ not relatively prime $\Leftrightarrow$ there exists a prime $p$ so that $p|a_{1},…,p|a_{k}$

  1. $(\Rightarrow )$ Assume $a_{1},…,a_{k}$ are not relatively prime, then there is a number p which divides $a_{1},…,a_{k}$. Now it is to show that p must also be a prime. Since R is a factorial ring, that means … stuck.

  2. $(\Leftarrow) $ Assume $p|a_{1},…,p|a_{k}$, then $a_{1},…,a_{k}$ are trivially not relatively prime.

Does anybody see a way to use that R is a factorial ring to show that p must also be a prime?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

For $\Rightarrow$, factor the greatest common divisor. Since it is not unit (then the $a_i$'s would be relatively prime), it has at least one prime factor. This prime factor divides every $a_i$.

The gcd itself is not necessarily prime; a simple counterexample is $\mathbb Z$ with $a_1=a_2=6$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.