0
$\begingroup$

Is the equality $16=5\cdot 3+1$ the euclidean division of $16$ by $3$ or not ?

This question is a point of discord between teachers where some them state that the divisor must be written in the first position (in this example, one has to write $16=3\cdot 5+1$ i.e must write the divisor first then the quotient).

What do you think ?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ is that a question on notation specifically? if so, add notation tag $\endgroup$ – gt6989b Jan 17 at 15:32
  • $\begingroup$ @gt6988b yes but I can't edit my post. $\endgroup$ – Profahk Jan 17 at 15:38
1
$\begingroup$

$\ 16 = 5\times 3 + 1$ could arise from dividing $16$ by $5$ or by $3$. Without any further context there is no way to determine if $5$ or $3$ is the intended divisor.

Though - as you mention - one could impose syntactic conventions that imply which is the intended divisor, this is usually not a good idea, since it violates referential transparency, i.e. replacing an expression with an equivalent expression should not change its meaning. But if we replace $3^2$ by $3\times 3$ in $\,37 = 3^2\times 4 + 1$ then it changes the divisor from $9$ to $3$ (using your convention that the first factor is the divisor).

Further, conventions that force one to use specific commutations / associations of products may lead to increased complexity, e.g. instead of writing $\, f(x) = (x^2+x+1)^n g(x) + 1$ we would be forced to instead write $\,f(x) = (x^2+x+1)(x^2+x+1)^{n-1}g(x) + 1$ to denote that $\,x^2+x+1\,$ is the intended divisor.

As such, it is generally better to avoid such conventions and instead explicitly state the divisor.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank You.Do you have any reference (book, website,...) that I can convince my colleagues ? $\endgroup$ – Profahk Jan 17 at 17:43
0
$\begingroup$

The answer is neither yes nor no. “Euclidean division” is a concept, not an arithmetic expression. The quotient of the Euclidean division of $16$ by $5$ is $3$ and the remainder is $1$. You can prove it by any of the equalities $16=3\times5+1$ or $16=5\times3+1$ (they are equivalent, of course), but, again, none of them is the Euclidean division.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But we can write an equality to express an Euclidean division ? $\endgroup$ – Profahk Jan 17 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ Both equalities $16=3\times5+1$ and $16=5\times3+1$ explain why is it that the quotient is $5$ and the remainder is $1$. But none of them is the Euclidean division. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Jan 17 at 15:43
  • $\begingroup$ I agree that both of them explain why the quotient is 5 and the remainder 1. $\endgroup$ – Profahk Jan 17 at 15:46
  • $\begingroup$ I think I'm misunderstood. $\endgroup$ – Profahk Jan 17 at 15:47

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.