Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
We also have the rule that 10 x + y is divisible iff x + 4 y is divisible by 13. For example, to test the divisibility of 1761 by 13 we can reduce this to the divisibility of 461 by the first rule. Using the second rule, this reduces to the divisibility of 50, and doing that again yields 5. So, 1761 is not divisible by 13.
The following laws can be verified using the properties of divisibility. They are a special case of rules in modular arithmetic, and are commonly used to check if an equality is likely to be correct by testing the parity of each side. As with ordinary arithmetic, multiplication and addition are commutative and associative in modulo 2 arithmetic ...
For example, 26 cannot be divided by 11 to give an integer. Such a case uses one of five approaches: Say that 26 cannot be divided by 11; division becomes a partial function. Give an approximate answer as a floating-point number. This is the approach usually taken in numerical computation.
For example, the number 21 is divisible by three (3 times 7) and the sum of its digits is 2 + 1 = 3. Because of this, the reverse of any number that is divisible by three (or indeed, any permutation of its digits) is also divisible by three. For instance, 1368 and its reverse 8631 are both divisible by three (and so are 1386, 3168, 3186, 3618 ...
For example, there are six divisors of 4; they are 1, 2, 4, −1, −2, and −4, but only the positive ones (1, 2, and 4) would usually be mentioned. 1 and −1 divide (are divisors of) every integer. Every integer (and its negation) is a divisor of itself. Integers divisible by 2 are called even, and integers not divisible by 2 are called odd.
Let R be a ring, [a] and let a and b be elements of R.If there exists an element x in R with ax = b, one says that a is a left divisor of b and that b is a right multiple of a. [1] ...
For example, if p = 19, a = 133, b = 143, then ab = 133 × 143 = 19019, and since this is divisible by 19, the lemma implies that one or both of 133 or 143 must be as well. In fact, 133 = 19 × 7 . The lemma first appeared in Euclid 's Elements , and is a fundamental result in elementary number theory.
That is, it has a divisibility rule for each number. There is also a non-terminating equivalent for every rational number akin to the fact that in decimal 0.24999... = 0.25 = 1/4 and 0.999... = 1 , etc., which can be created by reducing the final term by 1 and then filling in the remaining infinite number of terms with the highest value ...