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
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
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
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
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
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
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
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
proof-verification logic
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 $36$.
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
add a comment |
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 $144$.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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 $36 mid n$.
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
add a comment |
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 $36$.
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
add a comment |
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 $36$.
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
add a comment |
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 $36$.
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 $36$.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 $144$.
add a comment |
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 $144$.
add a comment |
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 $144$.
Yes that's correct or simply note that
$$n=144cdot k= 36cdot (4cdot k)$$
but $n=36$ is not divisible by $144$.
answered yesterday
gimusi
83.9k74292
83.9k74292
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 15 hours ago
TurlocTheRed
48518
48518
add a comment |
add a comment |
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 $36 mid n$.
add a comment |
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 $36 mid n$.
add a comment |
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 $36 mid n$.
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 $36 mid n$.
answered yesterday
TrostAft
305211
305211
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
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.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 13 hours ago
CCC
101
101
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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