1
$\begingroup$

Reading an old edition of Burton's number theory text, I come to this corollary in chapter 13:

In the Fibonacci sequence, $u_m \mid u_n$ if and only if $m \mid n$ for $m \ge 2$

The proof seems to be:

$u_m \mid u_n \implies \gcd(u_m,u_n)=u_m=u_d$ with $d=\gcd(m,n)$ by Theorem 13-3. Thus $m=d=gcd(m,n)$ and $m\mid n$

Conversely, $m|n \implies u_m | u_n$ by Theorem 13-2

This seems valid to me. However, If true, it seems

$1 | 2 \implies u_2 | u_3 \implies 2|3$ which is absurd.

I'm not sure where the mistake is. Should it perhaps be $m > 2$ in the corollary but then why?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

It should be $m,n>2$ in the corollary.

If you are wonderng why so, consider that the solution used $$gcd(u_m,u_n)=u_{\gcd(m,n)}=u_{m} \Rightarrow m=\gcd(m,n)$$ However, note that $u_{gcd(m,n)}=u_{m} \Leftrightarrow \gcd(m,n)=m$ is not true when $\gcd(m,n)=1$, since $u_1=u_2$ but $1 \neq 2$. To avoid this and assume that all elements in the Fibonacci sequence are distinct, it is necessary that $m,n>2$

For example, in your example, note that $\gcd(u_2, u_3)=u_1 =u_2$. So $u_2$ divides $u_3$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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