Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An element that is a left or a right zero divisor is simply called a zero divisor. [2] An element a that is both a left and a right zero divisor is called a two-sided zero divisor (the nonzero x such that ax = 0 may be different from the nonzero y such that ya = 0). If the ring is commutative, then the left and right zero divisors are the same.
Cancelling 0 from both sides yields =, a false statement. The fallacy here arises from the assumption that it is legitimate to cancel 0 like any other number, whereas, in fact, doing so is a form of division by 0. Using algebra, it is possible to disguise a division by zero [17] to obtain an invalid proof. For example: [18]
In abstract algebra, given a magma with binary operation ∗ (which could nominally be termed multiplication), left division of b by a (written a \ b) is typically defined as the solution x to the equation a ∗ x = b, if this exists and is unique. Similarly, right division of b by a (written b / a) is the solution y to the equation y ∗ a = b ...
If one interprets the definition of divisor literally, every a is a divisor of 0, since one can take x = 0. Because of this, it is traditional to abuse terminology by making an exception for zero divisors: one calls an element a in a commutative ring a zero divisor if there exists a nonzero x such that ax = 0. [2]
Prime numbers have exactly 2 divisors, and highly composite numbers are in bold. 7 is a divisor of 42 because =, so we can say It can also be said that 42 is divisible by 7, 42 is a multiple of 7, 7 divides 42, or 7 is a factor of 42. The non-trivial divisors of 6 are 2, −2, 3, −3.
For associative algebras, the definition can be simplified as follows: a non-zero associative algebra over a field is a division algebra if and only if it has a multiplicative identity element 1 and every non-zero element a has a multiplicative inverse (i.e. an element x with ax = xa = 1).
Polynomial long division is an algorithm that implements the Euclidean division of polynomials, which starting from two polynomials A (the dividend) and B (the divisor) produces, if B is not zero, a quotient Q and a remainder R such that A = BQ + R, and either R = 0 or the degree of R is lower than the degree of B.
However, 0 ≤ r < d, and d is the smallest positive integer in S: the remainder r can therefore not be in S, making r necessarily 0. This implies that d is a divisor of a. Similarly d is also a divisor of b, and therefore d is a common divisor of a and b. Now, let c be any common divisor of a and b; that is, there exist u and v such that a ...