In yesterday"s article, i issued a difficulty to attract a Hasse diagram because that the divisibility relation because that the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

You are watching: Is 0 a factor of every number

I additionally asked these questions to prod i.e. STEEM-u-late her thinking:-

Where would prime numbers fit right into the diagram?

Where would certainly the number 1 fit into the diagram?

Where would certainly the number 0 fit into the diagram?

Is it constantly true that whenever x is a variable of y, x have to be smaller than y? Is/are there any type of exception(s) come this “rule”?

Let us begin by noting that the number 1 divides every number. Any number have the right to be divided by 1, e.g. 2 ÷ 1 = 2 i.e. The an outcome is an integer. So 1 is a element of every number. Therefore I write "1" in ~ the bottom of the diagram.

*

Prime number are totality numbers higher than 1 that have the right to only be divided itself and also 1. Apart from 1, element numbers space usually components of other numbers and are the multiplicative structure blocks of entirety numbers, just like atoms are building blocks the molecules. So I put the prime numbers 2, 3, 5 and also 7 in the row above 1, and also join them with 1.

*

Since 2 | 4 and 4 | 8 we can expand a branch the this "tree" indigenous 2.

*

We can additionally extend the "tree" indigenous three. We recognize that 3 | 9. The LCM the 2 and also 3 is 6, therefore we have actually 6 over 2 and also 3 and also joined come them.

*

10 is the (lowest) lot of of 2 and 5. Currently we are practically done. The question is: where do we put the 0?

(A) Is 0 a factor of any type of number other than itself?

(B) Is 0 a many of any type of number other than itself?

To answer these questions, let us recap what we mean by "factor" and also what we mean by "multiple".

So for example 3 | 6. 3 is a element of 6. 6 is a multiple of 3. In other words 3 divides 6 or 6 have the right to be split (into equal whole-number shares) by 3. 6 ÷ 3 = part integer viz. 2.

Definition: us say a | b i.e. a is a variable of b or b is a multiple of a iff there exists an essence c such that a × c = b.

Using this definition, 0 | 0 i.e. 0 is a element of 0 and 0 is a lot of of 0, This is because 0 × 1 = 0 (put a = 0, c = 1 or any type of number, and b = 0).

However, the answer to (A) is "no". 0 is not a aspect of any kind of non-zero number. In the equation a × c = b, if a = 0 and also b is a non-zero number, the equation will always be false no issue what value c is, since the Left Hand next is constantly zero conversely, the ideal Hand next is not. So it is not feasible to have 0 | b wherein b is a non-zero number. The upshot the this is that the 0 is not going to show up the the bottom the the Hasse diagram.

The answer come (B) is "yes"! In fact, 0 is the lot of of every number! Why? In the equation a × c = 0, no issue what a is, we can constantly find a number c to multiply it to do it 0. For example c = 0. This always works! Another way of thinking about this is: speak you have 0 bowls of porridge to be mutual among, say, 789 monks, every monk it s okay 0 bowls that porridge.

Since 0 is a many of every number, 0 should show up at the top of the diagram. To save the diagram less messy, I perform not explicitly join every feasible divisibility relation. Some relationships are comprise by the transitive law, which claims that if x is a factor of y and y is a factor of z, climate x is a element of z. For this reason although 2 | 8, i do not explicitly connect 2 and 8. This connection is include by transitivity since 2 | 4 and 4 | 8, so the is interpreted that 2 | 8. You may regard 2 as joined come 8 via 4.

See more: How Much Is 800 Ml In Cups, Convert 800 Milliliters To Cups

Hence, I sign up with 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 to 0, yet it is construed that every number is joined to 0, either straight or indirectly, and I obtain the following.

*

Note the for ours numbers, which room non-negative, factors (appearing at lower rows) room usually smaller in magnitude. 0, the number appropriate on top, is the exception. So just how do us make a an exact mathematical statement because that this? we say:

For any kind of non-negative essence a, we have actually a | 0.ANDFor any kind of b that is a (non-zero) optimistic integer, a | b means that a

That it because that this article. Ns hope you uncovered this conversation educational and also fun!

cheers!

Announcements

There is quiet time to sign up with my math contest. SBD come be given away!

Please review my recent posts:

If you uncover my articles useful or interesting, please upvote and resteem them! view you tomorrow! many thanks to anyone for your support!!!