10
$\begingroup$

I know that the notation $a | b$ means that there exists an integer $c$ such that $ac=b$, but is this notation completely standard and there's no way that it could be the other way round?

  • 0
    @user2468 a "little" late answer but it is not reversed(at least in Hebrew)2018-01-23

2 Answers 2

7

In number theory and algebra $\rm\:a\ |\ b\ $ in ring $\rm\:R\:$ means $\rm\: \exists\: c\in R:\ ac = b,\,$ i.e. $\rm\,ax=b\,$ has at least one solution $\rm\,x\,$ in $\,\rm R.\,$ Usually the ring is omitted, being understood from ambient context. This notation is used so widely that it surely can be considered standard notation.

Occasionally some authors introduce asymmetric variants, with the bar being tilted, or with "hooks" on the top/bottom of the bar, intended to give some visual cue as to which argument is to be pushed to the bottom of a fraction, or pulled to the top. However, as convenient as they may be, none of these asymmetric variants is in wide use.

  • 1
    @Myridium Divisibility and factorization in non-commutative monoids is far less commonly considered than the commutative case. I'm not aware of any widely used notation for left/right divisibility.2014-10-01
6

That's right, the notation is absolutely standard, and reversing is simply wrong. So for example it is not true that $12\,|\,6$.

There is frequent student confusion about this, because $a/b$ is nowadays a common notation for the fraction $\dfrac{a}{b}$. That is a relatively recent development.

  • 13
    I agree that this is absolutely standard, but I think it's a pity. I think symbols for non-symmetric relations should never have a vertical symmetry axis. $\in$ doesn't, and we can write $\ni$ thanks to this when we find it convenient. Nothing like this can be done with $|.$2012-04-04