This is the fundamental gcd distributive law $\rm\:(ax,bx) = (a,b)x.\:$ It is instructive to prove it in various ways. here are $3$ proofs, using Bezout's identity, universal gcd laws, unique factorization.
First we show that the gcd distributive law follows immediately from the fact that, by Bezout, the gcd may be specified by linear equations. Distributivity follows because such linear equations are preserved by scalings. Namely, for naturals $\rm\:a,b,c,x \ne 0$
$\rm\qquad\qquad \phantom{ \iff }\ \ \ \:\! c = (a,b) $
$\rm\qquad\qquad \iff\ \: c\:\ |\ \:a,\:b\ \ \ \ \ \ \&\ \ \ \ c\ =\ na\: +\: kb,\ \ \ $ some $\rm\:n,k\in \mathbb Z$
$\rm\qquad\qquad \iff\ cx\ |\ ax,bx\ \ \ \&\ \ \ cx = nax + kbx,\ \,$ some $\rm\:n,k\in \mathbb Z$
$\rm\qquad\qquad { \iff }\ \ cx = (ax,bx) $
The reader familiar with ideals will note that these equivalences are captured more concisely in the distributive law for ideal multiplication $\rm\:(a,b)(x) = (ax,bx),\:$ when interpreted in a PID or Bezout domain, where the ideal $\rm\:(a,b) = (c)\iff c = gcd(a,b)$
Alternatively, more generally, in any integral domain $\rm\:D\:$ we may employ the universal definitions of GCD, LCM to generalize the above proof.
Theorem $\rm\ \ (a,b)\ =\ (ax,bx)/x\ \ $ if $\rm\ (ax,bx)\ $ exists in $\rm\:D.$
Proof $\rm\quad\: c\ |\ a,b \iff cx\ |\ ax,bx \iff cx\ |\ (ax,bx) \iff c\ |\ (ax,bx)/x\ \ \ $ QED
Such universal definitions often serve to simplify proofs, e.g. see this proof of the GCD * LCM law.
Alternatively, comparing powers of primes in unique factorizations, it reduces to the following
$$ \min(a+c,\,b+c)\ =\ \min(a,b) + c$$
The proof is precisely the same as the prior proof, replacing gcd by min, and divides by $\le$, and
$$\begin{eqnarray} {\rm employing}\quad\ c\le a,b&\iff& c\le \min(a,b)\quad&&\rm[universal\ definition\ of\ \ min]\\
\rm the\ analog\ of\quad\ c\ \, |\, \ a,b&\iff&\rm c\ \ |\ \ gcd(a,b)\quad&&\rm[universal\ definition\ of\ \ gcd] \end{eqnarray}$$
However, I think that is really where my question lies. I assumed there was some premeditation behind the wording such that it was intended to be a hint or something. For example, maybe that I was supposed to view bc as a product for some particular reason.
But I guess the wording of the question was arbitrary?
– GaMbiTaaaa Jan 29 '14 at 00:20