How can I argue that for a number to be divisible by 144 it has to be divisible by 36?











up vote
18
down vote

favorite
3












Suppose some number $n in mathbb{N}$ is divisible by $144$.



$$implies frac{n}{144}=k, space space space k in mathbb{Z} \ iff frac{n}{36cdot4}=k iff frac{n}{36}=4k$$



Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that $n$ must also be divisible by $36$. However, what I think I have just shown is:



$$text{A number }n space text{is divisble by} space 144 implies n space text{is divisible by} space 36 space (1)$$



Is that the same as saying: $$text{For a number to be divisible by 144 it has to be divisible by 36} space (2)$$



In other words, are statements (1) and (2) equivalent?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 14




    Yes, absolutely.
    – Bernard
    yesterday






  • 1




    Pedantically, the first sentence could have a different meaning if it somehow isn't obvious from context that $n$ is universally quantified. But in general they're the same.
    – Ian
    yesterday










  • You mean this sentence "Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that n must also be divisible by 36. ",right?
    – Nullspace
    yesterday










  • In general, if $a$ is divisible by $b$, and $b$ is divisible by $c$, then $a$ is divisible by $c$.
    – AlexanderJ93
    yesterday















up vote
18
down vote

favorite
3












Suppose some number $n in mathbb{N}$ is divisible by $144$.



$$implies frac{n}{144}=k, space space space k in mathbb{Z} \ iff frac{n}{36cdot4}=k iff frac{n}{36}=4k$$



Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that $n$ must also be divisible by $36$. However, what I think I have just shown is:



$$text{A number }n space text{is divisble by} space 144 implies n space text{is divisible by} space 36 space (1)$$



Is that the same as saying: $$text{For a number to be divisible by 144 it has to be divisible by 36} space (2)$$



In other words, are statements (1) and (2) equivalent?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 14




    Yes, absolutely.
    – Bernard
    yesterday






  • 1




    Pedantically, the first sentence could have a different meaning if it somehow isn't obvious from context that $n$ is universally quantified. But in general they're the same.
    – Ian
    yesterday










  • You mean this sentence "Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that n must also be divisible by 36. ",right?
    – Nullspace
    yesterday










  • In general, if $a$ is divisible by $b$, and $b$ is divisible by $c$, then $a$ is divisible by $c$.
    – AlexanderJ93
    yesterday













up vote
18
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
18
down vote

favorite
3






3





Suppose some number $n in mathbb{N}$ is divisible by $144$.



$$implies frac{n}{144}=k, space space space k in mathbb{Z} \ iff frac{n}{36cdot4}=k iff frac{n}{36}=4k$$



Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that $n$ must also be divisible by $36$. However, what I think I have just shown is:



$$text{A number }n space text{is divisble by} space 144 implies n space text{is divisible by} space 36 space (1)$$



Is that the same as saying: $$text{For a number to be divisible by 144 it has to be divisible by 36} space (2)$$



In other words, are statements (1) and (2) equivalent?










share|cite|improve this question













Suppose some number $n in mathbb{N}$ is divisible by $144$.



$$implies frac{n}{144}=k, space space space k in mathbb{Z} \ iff frac{n}{36cdot4}=k iff frac{n}{36}=4k$$



Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that $n$ must also be divisible by $36$. However, what I think I have just shown is:



$$text{A number }n space text{is divisble by} space 144 implies n space text{is divisible by} space 36 space (1)$$



Is that the same as saying: $$text{For a number to be divisible by 144 it has to be divisible by 36} space (2)$$



In other words, are statements (1) and (2) equivalent?







proof-verification logic






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked yesterday









Nullspace

11917




11917








  • 14




    Yes, absolutely.
    – Bernard
    yesterday






  • 1




    Pedantically, the first sentence could have a different meaning if it somehow isn't obvious from context that $n$ is universally quantified. But in general they're the same.
    – Ian
    yesterday










  • You mean this sentence "Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that n must also be divisible by 36. ",right?
    – Nullspace
    yesterday










  • In general, if $a$ is divisible by $b$, and $b$ is divisible by $c$, then $a$ is divisible by $c$.
    – AlexanderJ93
    yesterday














  • 14




    Yes, absolutely.
    – Bernard
    yesterday






  • 1




    Pedantically, the first sentence could have a different meaning if it somehow isn't obvious from context that $n$ is universally quantified. But in general they're the same.
    – Ian
    yesterday










  • You mean this sentence "Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that n must also be divisible by 36. ",right?
    – Nullspace
    yesterday










  • In general, if $a$ is divisible by $b$, and $b$ is divisible by $c$, then $a$ is divisible by $c$.
    – AlexanderJ93
    yesterday








14




14




Yes, absolutely.
– Bernard
yesterday




Yes, absolutely.
– Bernard
yesterday




1




1




Pedantically, the first sentence could have a different meaning if it somehow isn't obvious from context that $n$ is universally quantified. But in general they're the same.
– Ian
yesterday




Pedantically, the first sentence could have a different meaning if it somehow isn't obvious from context that $n$ is universally quantified. But in general they're the same.
– Ian
yesterday












You mean this sentence "Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that n must also be divisible by 36. ",right?
– Nullspace
yesterday




You mean this sentence "Since any whole number times a whole number is still a whole number, it follows that n must also be divisible by 36. ",right?
– Nullspace
yesterday












In general, if $a$ is divisible by $b$, and $b$ is divisible by $c$, then $a$ is divisible by $c$.
– AlexanderJ93
yesterday




In general, if $a$ is divisible by $b$, and $b$ is divisible by $c$, then $a$ is divisible by $c$.
– AlexanderJ93
yesterday










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
41
down vote



accepted










Yes, it's the same. $Aimplies B$ is equivalent to "if we have $A$, we must have $B$".



And your proof looks fine. Good job.



If I were to offer some constructive criticism, it would be of the general kind: In number theory, even though we call the property "divisible", we usually avoid division whenever possible. Of the four basic arithmetic operations it is the only one which makes integers into non-integers. And number theory is all about integers.



Therefore, "$n$ is divisible by $144$", or "$144$ divides $n$" as it's also called, is defined a bit backwards:




There is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$




(This is defined for any number in place of $144$, except $0$.)



Using that definition, your proof becomes something like this:



If $n$ is divisible by $144$, then there is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$. This gives
$$
n=144k=(36cdot4)k=36(4k)
$$

Since $4k$ is an integer, this means $n$ is also divisible by $36$.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 2




    Programmers might may say mod() = 0 rather than "divides", if n modulus 144 is zero then n modulus 36 is zero etc. Non zero values are integers.
    – mckenzm
    yesterday










  • Every definition I ever see of divisibility specifically excludes $0$ as a potential divisor (checked a few abstract algebra books here, etc.). If that were not the case, it would wind up violating the Division Algorithm, leave greatest common divisors not well-defined, etc.
    – Daniel R. Collins
    3 hours ago


















up vote
4
down vote













Yes that's correct or simply note that



$$n=144cdot k= 36cdot (4cdot k)$$



but $n=36$ is not divisible by $144$.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    4
    down vote













    There are often multiple approaches to proofs. Is usually good to be familiar with multiple techniques.



    You have a very good approach. Parsimonious and references only the particular entities at hand.



    Some times, for the sake of illustrating the use of additional concepts, you might want to deviate from parsimony.



    In that spirit, here's an additional proof.



    According to The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, if something is divisible by 144, then it is divisible by at least the same primes raised to the powers you need to yield 144. In other words, $144=2^43^2$. For something to be divisible by 144, the primes 2 and 3 must appear in its prime factorization. The powers of 2 and 3 must be at least 4 and 2, respectively. Now $36=2^23^2$. So any number who's prime factorization incluedes the primes 2 and 3, and has them raised at least to the power of 2, then it is also divisible by 36. If something is divisible by 144, we are guaranteed that 2 and 3 appear in its prime factorization. We area also guaranteed that the exponents on 2 and 3 are 4 and 2 respectively. So divisibility by 144 implies divisibility by 36 since the exponents satisfy the established criteria.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      The $implies$ symbol is defined as follows:



      If $p implies q$ then if $p$ is true, then $q$ must also be true. So when you say $144 mid n implies 36 mid n$ it's the same thing as saying that if $144 mid n$, then it must also be true that $36 mid n$.






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        The prime factorization of 144 is 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.
        The prime factorization of 36 is 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.



        If X is divisible by Y, then X's prime factorization contains all of the factors in Y's prime factorization.



        Since 144's prime factorization contains all of the factors in 36's prime factorization, 144 is divisible by 36.



        The prime factorization of any number that is divisible by 144 contains all of the prime factors of 144, which contains all of the prime factors of 36. Hence any number that is divisible by 144 has a prime factorization that contains all the prime factors of 36, and therefore is divisible by 36.






        share|cite|improve this answer








        New contributor




        CCC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.


















          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2994429%2fhow-can-i-argue-that-for-a-number-to-be-divisible-by-144-it-has-to-be-divisible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest
































          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          41
          down vote



          accepted










          Yes, it's the same. $Aimplies B$ is equivalent to "if we have $A$, we must have $B$".



          And your proof looks fine. Good job.



          If I were to offer some constructive criticism, it would be of the general kind: In number theory, even though we call the property "divisible", we usually avoid division whenever possible. Of the four basic arithmetic operations it is the only one which makes integers into non-integers. And number theory is all about integers.



          Therefore, "$n$ is divisible by $144$", or "$144$ divides $n$" as it's also called, is defined a bit backwards:




          There is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$




          (This is defined for any number in place of $144$, except $0$.)



          Using that definition, your proof becomes something like this:



          If $n$ is divisible by $144$, then there is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$. This gives
          $$
          n=144k=(36cdot4)k=36(4k)
          $$

          Since $4k$ is an integer, this means $n$ is also divisible by $36$.






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 2




            Programmers might may say mod() = 0 rather than "divides", if n modulus 144 is zero then n modulus 36 is zero etc. Non zero values are integers.
            – mckenzm
            yesterday










          • Every definition I ever see of divisibility specifically excludes $0$ as a potential divisor (checked a few abstract algebra books here, etc.). If that were not the case, it would wind up violating the Division Algorithm, leave greatest common divisors not well-defined, etc.
            – Daniel R. Collins
            3 hours ago















          up vote
          41
          down vote



          accepted










          Yes, it's the same. $Aimplies B$ is equivalent to "if we have $A$, we must have $B$".



          And your proof looks fine. Good job.



          If I were to offer some constructive criticism, it would be of the general kind: In number theory, even though we call the property "divisible", we usually avoid division whenever possible. Of the four basic arithmetic operations it is the only one which makes integers into non-integers. And number theory is all about integers.



          Therefore, "$n$ is divisible by $144$", or "$144$ divides $n$" as it's also called, is defined a bit backwards:




          There is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$




          (This is defined for any number in place of $144$, except $0$.)



          Using that definition, your proof becomes something like this:



          If $n$ is divisible by $144$, then there is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$. This gives
          $$
          n=144k=(36cdot4)k=36(4k)
          $$

          Since $4k$ is an integer, this means $n$ is also divisible by $36$.






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 2




            Programmers might may say mod() = 0 rather than "divides", if n modulus 144 is zero then n modulus 36 is zero etc. Non zero values are integers.
            – mckenzm
            yesterday










          • Every definition I ever see of divisibility specifically excludes $0$ as a potential divisor (checked a few abstract algebra books here, etc.). If that were not the case, it would wind up violating the Division Algorithm, leave greatest common divisors not well-defined, etc.
            – Daniel R. Collins
            3 hours ago













          up vote
          41
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          41
          down vote



          accepted






          Yes, it's the same. $Aimplies B$ is equivalent to "if we have $A$, we must have $B$".



          And your proof looks fine. Good job.



          If I were to offer some constructive criticism, it would be of the general kind: In number theory, even though we call the property "divisible", we usually avoid division whenever possible. Of the four basic arithmetic operations it is the only one which makes integers into non-integers. And number theory is all about integers.



          Therefore, "$n$ is divisible by $144$", or "$144$ divides $n$" as it's also called, is defined a bit backwards:




          There is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$




          (This is defined for any number in place of $144$, except $0$.)



          Using that definition, your proof becomes something like this:



          If $n$ is divisible by $144$, then there is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$. This gives
          $$
          n=144k=(36cdot4)k=36(4k)
          $$

          Since $4k$ is an integer, this means $n$ is also divisible by $36$.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Yes, it's the same. $Aimplies B$ is equivalent to "if we have $A$, we must have $B$".



          And your proof looks fine. Good job.



          If I were to offer some constructive criticism, it would be of the general kind: In number theory, even though we call the property "divisible", we usually avoid division whenever possible. Of the four basic arithmetic operations it is the only one which makes integers into non-integers. And number theory is all about integers.



          Therefore, "$n$ is divisible by $144$", or "$144$ divides $n$" as it's also called, is defined a bit backwards:




          There is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$




          (This is defined for any number in place of $144$, except $0$.)



          Using that definition, your proof becomes something like this:



          If $n$ is divisible by $144$, then there is an integer $k$ such that $n=144k$. This gives
          $$
          n=144k=(36cdot4)k=36(4k)
          $$

          Since $4k$ is an integer, this means $n$ is also divisible by $36$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 3 hours ago

























          answered yesterday









          Arthur

          107k7103186




          107k7103186








          • 2




            Programmers might may say mod() = 0 rather than "divides", if n modulus 144 is zero then n modulus 36 is zero etc. Non zero values are integers.
            – mckenzm
            yesterday










          • Every definition I ever see of divisibility specifically excludes $0$ as a potential divisor (checked a few abstract algebra books here, etc.). If that were not the case, it would wind up violating the Division Algorithm, leave greatest common divisors not well-defined, etc.
            – Daniel R. Collins
            3 hours ago














          • 2




            Programmers might may say mod() = 0 rather than "divides", if n modulus 144 is zero then n modulus 36 is zero etc. Non zero values are integers.
            – mckenzm
            yesterday










          • Every definition I ever see of divisibility specifically excludes $0$ as a potential divisor (checked a few abstract algebra books here, etc.). If that were not the case, it would wind up violating the Division Algorithm, leave greatest common divisors not well-defined, etc.
            – Daniel R. Collins
            3 hours ago








          2




          2




          Programmers might may say mod() = 0 rather than "divides", if n modulus 144 is zero then n modulus 36 is zero etc. Non zero values are integers.
          – mckenzm
          yesterday




          Programmers might may say mod() = 0 rather than "divides", if n modulus 144 is zero then n modulus 36 is zero etc. Non zero values are integers.
          – mckenzm
          yesterday












          Every definition I ever see of divisibility specifically excludes $0$ as a potential divisor (checked a few abstract algebra books here, etc.). If that were not the case, it would wind up violating the Division Algorithm, leave greatest common divisors not well-defined, etc.
          – Daniel R. Collins
          3 hours ago




          Every definition I ever see of divisibility specifically excludes $0$ as a potential divisor (checked a few abstract algebra books here, etc.). If that were not the case, it would wind up violating the Division Algorithm, leave greatest common divisors not well-defined, etc.
          – Daniel R. Collins
          3 hours ago










          up vote
          4
          down vote













          Yes that's correct or simply note that



          $$n=144cdot k= 36cdot (4cdot k)$$



          but $n=36$ is not divisible by $144$.






          share|cite|improve this answer

























            up vote
            4
            down vote













            Yes that's correct or simply note that



            $$n=144cdot k= 36cdot (4cdot k)$$



            but $n=36$ is not divisible by $144$.






            share|cite|improve this answer























              up vote
              4
              down vote










              up vote
              4
              down vote









              Yes that's correct or simply note that



              $$n=144cdot k= 36cdot (4cdot k)$$



              but $n=36$ is not divisible by $144$.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              Yes that's correct or simply note that



              $$n=144cdot k= 36cdot (4cdot k)$$



              but $n=36$ is not divisible by $144$.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered yesterday









              gimusi

              83.9k74292




              83.9k74292






















                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote













                  There are often multiple approaches to proofs. Is usually good to be familiar with multiple techniques.



                  You have a very good approach. Parsimonious and references only the particular entities at hand.



                  Some times, for the sake of illustrating the use of additional concepts, you might want to deviate from parsimony.



                  In that spirit, here's an additional proof.



                  According to The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, if something is divisible by 144, then it is divisible by at least the same primes raised to the powers you need to yield 144. In other words, $144=2^43^2$. For something to be divisible by 144, the primes 2 and 3 must appear in its prime factorization. The powers of 2 and 3 must be at least 4 and 2, respectively. Now $36=2^23^2$. So any number who's prime factorization incluedes the primes 2 and 3, and has them raised at least to the power of 2, then it is also divisible by 36. If something is divisible by 144, we are guaranteed that 2 and 3 appear in its prime factorization. We area also guaranteed that the exponents on 2 and 3 are 4 and 2 respectively. So divisibility by 144 implies divisibility by 36 since the exponents satisfy the established criteria.






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote













                    There are often multiple approaches to proofs. Is usually good to be familiar with multiple techniques.



                    You have a very good approach. Parsimonious and references only the particular entities at hand.



                    Some times, for the sake of illustrating the use of additional concepts, you might want to deviate from parsimony.



                    In that spirit, here's an additional proof.



                    According to The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, if something is divisible by 144, then it is divisible by at least the same primes raised to the powers you need to yield 144. In other words, $144=2^43^2$. For something to be divisible by 144, the primes 2 and 3 must appear in its prime factorization. The powers of 2 and 3 must be at least 4 and 2, respectively. Now $36=2^23^2$. So any number who's prime factorization incluedes the primes 2 and 3, and has them raised at least to the power of 2, then it is also divisible by 36. If something is divisible by 144, we are guaranteed that 2 and 3 appear in its prime factorization. We area also guaranteed that the exponents on 2 and 3 are 4 and 2 respectively. So divisibility by 144 implies divisibility by 36 since the exponents satisfy the established criteria.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                      up vote
                      4
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      4
                      down vote









                      There are often multiple approaches to proofs. Is usually good to be familiar with multiple techniques.



                      You have a very good approach. Parsimonious and references only the particular entities at hand.



                      Some times, for the sake of illustrating the use of additional concepts, you might want to deviate from parsimony.



                      In that spirit, here's an additional proof.



                      According to The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, if something is divisible by 144, then it is divisible by at least the same primes raised to the powers you need to yield 144. In other words, $144=2^43^2$. For something to be divisible by 144, the primes 2 and 3 must appear in its prime factorization. The powers of 2 and 3 must be at least 4 and 2, respectively. Now $36=2^23^2$. So any number who's prime factorization incluedes the primes 2 and 3, and has them raised at least to the power of 2, then it is also divisible by 36. If something is divisible by 144, we are guaranteed that 2 and 3 appear in its prime factorization. We area also guaranteed that the exponents on 2 and 3 are 4 and 2 respectively. So divisibility by 144 implies divisibility by 36 since the exponents satisfy the established criteria.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      There are often multiple approaches to proofs. Is usually good to be familiar with multiple techniques.



                      You have a very good approach. Parsimonious and references only the particular entities at hand.



                      Some times, for the sake of illustrating the use of additional concepts, you might want to deviate from parsimony.



                      In that spirit, here's an additional proof.



                      According to The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, if something is divisible by 144, then it is divisible by at least the same primes raised to the powers you need to yield 144. In other words, $144=2^43^2$. For something to be divisible by 144, the primes 2 and 3 must appear in its prime factorization. The powers of 2 and 3 must be at least 4 and 2, respectively. Now $36=2^23^2$. So any number who's prime factorization incluedes the primes 2 and 3, and has them raised at least to the power of 2, then it is also divisible by 36. If something is divisible by 144, we are guaranteed that 2 and 3 appear in its prime factorization. We area also guaranteed that the exponents on 2 and 3 are 4 and 2 respectively. So divisibility by 144 implies divisibility by 36 since the exponents satisfy the established criteria.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered 15 hours ago









                      TurlocTheRed

                      48518




                      48518






















                          up vote
                          3
                          down vote













                          The $implies$ symbol is defined as follows:



                          If $p implies q$ then if $p$ is true, then $q$ must also be true. So when you say $144 mid n implies 36 mid n$ it's the same thing as saying that if $144 mid n$, then it must also be true that $36 mid n$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer

























                            up vote
                            3
                            down vote













                            The $implies$ symbol is defined as follows:



                            If $p implies q$ then if $p$ is true, then $q$ must also be true. So when you say $144 mid n implies 36 mid n$ it's the same thing as saying that if $144 mid n$, then it must also be true that $36 mid n$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer























                              up vote
                              3
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              3
                              down vote









                              The $implies$ symbol is defined as follows:



                              If $p implies q$ then if $p$ is true, then $q$ must also be true. So when you say $144 mid n implies 36 mid n$ it's the same thing as saying that if $144 mid n$, then it must also be true that $36 mid n$.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              The $implies$ symbol is defined as follows:



                              If $p implies q$ then if $p$ is true, then $q$ must also be true. So when you say $144 mid n implies 36 mid n$ it's the same thing as saying that if $144 mid n$, then it must also be true that $36 mid n$.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered yesterday









                              TrostAft

                              305211




                              305211






















                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote













                                  The prime factorization of 144 is 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.
                                  The prime factorization of 36 is 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.



                                  If X is divisible by Y, then X's prime factorization contains all of the factors in Y's prime factorization.



                                  Since 144's prime factorization contains all of the factors in 36's prime factorization, 144 is divisible by 36.



                                  The prime factorization of any number that is divisible by 144 contains all of the prime factors of 144, which contains all of the prime factors of 36. Hence any number that is divisible by 144 has a prime factorization that contains all the prime factors of 36, and therefore is divisible by 36.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  CCC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote













                                    The prime factorization of 144 is 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.
                                    The prime factorization of 36 is 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.



                                    If X is divisible by Y, then X's prime factorization contains all of the factors in Y's prime factorization.



                                    Since 144's prime factorization contains all of the factors in 36's prime factorization, 144 is divisible by 36.



                                    The prime factorization of any number that is divisible by 144 contains all of the prime factors of 144, which contains all of the prime factors of 36. Hence any number that is divisible by 144 has a prime factorization that contains all the prime factors of 36, and therefore is divisible by 36.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    CCC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote









                                      The prime factorization of 144 is 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.
                                      The prime factorization of 36 is 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.



                                      If X is divisible by Y, then X's prime factorization contains all of the factors in Y's prime factorization.



                                      Since 144's prime factorization contains all of the factors in 36's prime factorization, 144 is divisible by 36.



                                      The prime factorization of any number that is divisible by 144 contains all of the prime factors of 144, which contains all of the prime factors of 36. Hence any number that is divisible by 144 has a prime factorization that contains all the prime factors of 36, and therefore is divisible by 36.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      CCC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      The prime factorization of 144 is 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.
                                      The prime factorization of 36 is 2 * 2 * 3 * 3.



                                      If X is divisible by Y, then X's prime factorization contains all of the factors in Y's prime factorization.



                                      Since 144's prime factorization contains all of the factors in 36's prime factorization, 144 is divisible by 36.



                                      The prime factorization of any number that is divisible by 144 contains all of the prime factors of 144, which contains all of the prime factors of 36. Hence any number that is divisible by 144 has a prime factorization that contains all the prime factors of 36, and therefore is divisible by 36.







                                      share|cite|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      CCC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer






                                      New contributor




                                      CCC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      answered 13 hours ago









                                      CCC

                                      101




                                      101




                                      New contributor




                                      CCC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                      New contributor





                                      CCC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                      CCC is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                                           

                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded



















































                                           


                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2994429%2fhow-can-i-argue-that-for-a-number-to-be-divisible-by-144-it-has-to-be-divisible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest




















































































                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                                          ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                                          Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?