In number theory, two integers and are coprime, relatively prime or mutually prime if the only positive integer that is a divisor of both of them is 1.[1] Consequently, any prime number that divides does not divide, and vice versa. This is equivalent to their greatest common divisor (GCD) being 1. One says also is prime to or is coprime with .
The numbers 8 and 9 are coprime, despite the fact that neither—considered individually—is a prime number, since 1 is their only common divisor. On the other hand, 6 and 9 are not coprime, because they are both divisible by 3. The numerator and denominator of a reduced fraction are coprime, by definition.
When the integers and are coprime, the standard way of expressing this fact in mathematical notation is to indicate that their greatest common divisor is one, by the formula or . In their 1989 textbook Concrete Mathematics, Ronald Graham, Donald Knuth, and Oren Patashnik proposed an alternative notation
a\perpb
A fast way to determine whether two numbers are coprime is given by the Euclidean algorithm and its faster variants such as binary GCD algorithm or Lehmer's GCD algorithm.
The number of integers coprime with a positive integer, between 1 and, is given by Euler's totient function, also known as Euler's phi function, .
A set of integers can also be called coprime if its elements share no common positive factor except 1. A stronger condition on a set of integers is pairwise coprime, which means that and are coprime for every pair of different integers in the set. The set is coprime, but it is not pairwise coprime since 2 and 4 are not relatively prime.
The numbers 1 and −1 are the only integers coprime with every integer, and they are the only integers that are coprime with 0.
A number of conditions are equivalent to and being coprime:
As a consequence of the third point, if and are coprime and, then . That is, we may "divide by " when working modulo . Furthermore, if are both coprime with, then so is their product (i.e., modulo it is a product of invertible elements, and therefore invertible); this also follows from the first point by Euclid's lemma, which states that if a prime number divides a product, then divides at least one of the factors .
As a consequence of the first point, if and are coprime, then so are any powers and .
If and are coprime and divides the product, then divides . This can be viewed as a generalization of Euclid's lemma.
The two integers and are coprime if and only if the point with coordinates in a Cartesian coordinate system would be "visible" via an unobstructed line of sight from the origin, in the sense that there is no point with integer coordinates anywhere on the line segment between the origin and . (See figure 1.)
In a sense that can be made precise, the probability that two randomly chosen integers are coprime is, which is about 61% (see, below).
Two natural numbers and are coprime if and only if the numbers and are coprime. As a generalization of this, following easily from the Euclidean algorithm in base :
\gcd\left(na-1,nb-1\right)=n\gcd(a,-1.
A set of integers
S=\{a1,a2,...,an\}
If every pair in a set of integers is coprime, then the set is said to be pairwise coprime (or pairwise relatively prime, mutually coprime or mutually relatively prime). Pairwise coprimality is a stronger condition than setwise coprimality; every pairwise coprime finite set is also setwise coprime, but the reverse is not true. For example, the integers 4, 5, 6 are (setwise) coprime (because the only positive integer dividing all of them is 1), but they are not pairwise coprime (because).
The concept of pairwise coprimality is important as a hypothesis in many results in number theory, such as the Chinese remainder theorem.
It is possible for an infinite set of integers to be pairwise coprime. Notable examples include the set of all prime numbers, the set of elements in Sylvester's sequence, and the set of all Fermat numbers.
Two ideals and in a commutative ring are called coprime (or comaximal) if
A+B=R.
AB=A\capB;
Given two randomly chosen integers and, it is reasonable to ask how likely it is that and are coprime. In this determination, it is convenient to use the characterization that and are coprime if and only if no prime number divides both of them (see Fundamental theorem of arithmetic).
Informally, the probability that any number is divisible by a prime (or in fact any integer) is for example, every 7th integer is divisible by 7. Hence the probability that two numbers are both divisible by is and the probability that at least one of them is not is Any finite collection of divisibility events associated to distinct primes is mutually independent. For example, in the case of two events, a number is divisible by primes and if and only if it is divisible by ; the latter event has probability If one makes the heuristic assumption that such reasoning can be extended to infinitely many divisibility events, one is led to guess that the probability that two numbers are coprime is given by a product over all primes,
\prodprime\left(1-
| 1 | |
| p2 |
\right)=\left(\prodprime
| 1 | |
| 1-p-2 |
\right)-1=
| 1 | |
| \zeta(2) |
=
| 6 | |
| \pi2 |
≈ 0.607927102 ≈ 61\%.
Here refers to the Riemann zeta function, the identity relating the product over primes to is an example of an Euler product, and the evaluation of as is the Basel problem, solved by Leonhard Euler in 1735.
There is no way to choose a positive integer at random so that each positive integer occurs with equal probability, but statements about "randomly chosen integers" such as the ones above can be formalized by using the notion of natural density. For each positive integer, let be the probability that two randomly chosen numbers in
\{1,2,\ldots,N\}
N\toinfty,
More generally, the probability of randomly chosen integers being setwise coprime is
All pairs of positive coprime numbers (with) can be arranged in two disjoint complete ternary trees, one tree starting from (for even–odd and odd–even pairs),[3] and the other tree starting from (for odd–odd pairs).[4] The children of each vertex are generated as follows:
(2m-n,m)
(2m+n,m)
(m+2n,n)
This scheme is exhaustive and non-redundant with no invalid members. This can be proved by remarking that, if
(a,b)
a>b,
a>3b,
(a,b)
(m,n)=(a-2b,b)
2b<a<3b,
(a,b)
(m,n)=(b,a-2b)
b<a<2b,
(a,b)
(m,n)=(b,2b-a)
(m,n)
m>n.
a=2b
a=3b.
(2,1)
(3,1).
In machine design, an even, uniform gear wear is achieved by choosing the tooth counts of the two gears meshing together to be relatively prime. When a 1:1 gear ratio is desired, a gear relatively prime to the two equal-size gears may be inserted between them.
In pre-computer cryptography, some Vernam cipher machines combined several loops of key tape of different lengths. Many rotor machines combine rotors of different numbers of teeth. Such combinations work best when the entire set of lengths are pairwise coprime.[5] [6] [7] [8]
This concept can be extended to other algebraic structures than for example, polynomials whose greatest common divisor is 1 are called coprime polynomials.