Register to reply

Whole prime number

by philiprdutton
Tags: number, prime
Share this thread:
philiprdutton
#1
Jul27-07, 12:27 AM
P: 120
I posted the following on my blog (http://fooledbyprimes.blogspot.com/2...ly-primes.html)



Not until recently has the whole prime number "culture" become a distraction to me. While a child the primes never really caught my attention. Even in college there was not much drawing me to the subject beyond the occasional newspaper headline proclaiming the exuberance of the mathematics community as some rather skinny, unkempt math geek held a new largest prime in high esteem.

One of the things that bothered me about primes is how messy they are. From the perspective of where they are on the number line one can't help but get the feeling that any equation related to their distribution is going to be ugly. Maybe I am a sucker for simplicity- just call it an eye for elegance!

Taking a look at the math culture's definition of a prime we find something like: "..a natural number that has exactly two (distinct) natural number divisors, which are 1 and the prime number itself." Oh how boring! Of course the mathematicians tell us that primes build all the other numbers. Digging around one will find this formal statement called the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. It says, "every natural number greater than 1 can be written as a unique product of prime numbers." It appears to be very, very important to mathematics- afterall, it is the fundamental theorem of arithmetic!

I must admit I didn't investigate the prime number sequence at all other than taking a quick peek at the first 100 primes. Instead, I became intensely focused on the two related definitions given above. Take a look at the words in the definition and convince yourself which words convey the most "action"- the meat of the definitions so to speak. I came up with "natural number divisors" and "unique product." Now, I must say right away that I failed calculus II so I do not profess to be a brilliant mathematician (don't worry, I took the class again with a different professor and got an passing grade). There is one thing that I do know about math and it is this: multiplication is just repeated addition.

So, I wondered what would happen if the math culture rewrote the fundamental theorem of arithmetic without using the word "product." Wouldn't that be cool- a simplified version of the definition! Maybe... just maybe... we might find some new way to think about prime numbers and make some progress on the stubborn topic.

Personally, I believe that a number which is "prime" is just highlighing a side effect of short-cut addition. We have to have short-cuts otherwise we humans would count to each other when we simply wanted to say "I'll pay you 25 copper coins to feed my camels." Think about the axioms of arithmetic. List them on paper and then erase the ones related to multiplication and division. Now, tell me what a prime number is! I feel that we have been duped by the math community at large because they told us for so long that primes are super important- even godly. I challenge everyone to go back to the basics for the sake of progress! (I know you're just as tired of the centuries-old unsolved prime number mysteries)

What I am saying is that the prime numbers are not mystical. What is mystical is the relationship between the algorithmic process of counting and the notion of short-cuts (multiplication). Are the two different? Yes. Short-cuts require some sort of memory. The memory is in the form of additional "wiring"... like defining new kinds of number systems. Think about it: the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Hebrews, Hindus, they all count the same. But their short cut methods are what are different. Counting is simple, just repeat after me: "da, da, da, da, da, da, da....." Short-cutting and communicating about where the counting stops is a completely different ballgame and it is what produces the "mysterious" properties that we perceive in the primes.

I would be interested in literature about the primes from the perspective above.

Thanks,

Philip R. Dutton
Columbia, SC, USA
http://fooledbyprimes.blogspot.com/
http://forum.wolframscience.com/memb...ster&forumid=4
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Wildfires and other burns play bigger role in climate change, professor finds
SR Labs research to expose BadUSB next week in Vegas
New study advances 'DNA revolution,' tells butterflies' evolutionary history
HallsofIvy
#2
Jul28-07, 05:17 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,363
I'm sorry: "the fundamental theorem of arithmetic without using the word 'product.'"? I can't imagine how it could be stated more easily! In general, multiplication is NOT a "shortcut" for addition. Thinking it is misses the whole point.
ice109
#3
Jul28-07, 05:28 PM
P: 1,705
how old are you? your writing is worse than high school quality and i don't see your point at all. seems like someone just trying to use a lot of big words.

CRGreathouse
#4
Jul28-07, 05:44 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Whole prime number

For what it's worth I see multiplication as the core relation, with addition as a more complex and loess natural system that makes numbers more complex. For me, the primes are quite literally the atom of the natural numbers.

Quote Quote by philiprdutton View Post
So, I wondered what would happen if the math culture rewrote the fundamental theorem of arithmetic without using the word "product." Wouldn't that be cool- a simplified version of the definition! Maybe... just maybe... we might find some new way to think about prime numbers and make some progress on the stubborn topic.
The most natural such translation that comes to my mind would be using logs. Define lP = {log 2, log 3, log 5, ...}. Now the log of each positive integer can be uniquely represented as a linear combination of values from this set, up to the order of summands. Of course I hardly think logarithms are more natural than products.

Perhaps there is a version of the fundamental theorem using just gcds and its like?
CRGreathouse
#5
Jul28-07, 05:47 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
In response to your third blog post's challenge: "Try to define a prime number without using the word 'product' nor the word 'multiplication.'"

A prime number is a number with a nonzero residue modulo all numbers 1 < k < n.
philiprdutton
#6
Jul28-07, 06:05 PM
P: 120
Quote Quote by CRGreathouse View Post
In response to your third blog post's challenge: "Try to define a prime number without using the word 'product' nor the word 'multiplication.'"

A prime number is a number with a nonzero residue modulo all numbers 1 < k < n.
Interesting! Now we are getting somewhere. I have an idea: Someone should find all the different ways to define "prime". Maybe there would a list of around 10 different fundamental statements depending on your axiomatic system of choice. Surely the list would be beneficial to people like me who are trying to understand the subject but who, clearly can not write well.
CRGreathouse
#7
Jul28-07, 06:08 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by philiprdutton View Post
Interesting! Now we are getting somewhere. I have an idea: Someone show find all the different ways to define prime number. Maybe there would a list of 10 different fundamental statements depending on your axiomatic system of choice. Surely the list would be beneficial to people like me who are trying to understand the subject but who, clearly can not write well.
Have you taken abstract algebra? You might be interested in the generalization of "prime" and "irreducible", as well as the study of systems where they don't coincide.
philiprdutton
#8
Jul28-07, 06:09 PM
P: 120
Quote Quote by ice109 View Post
how old are you? your writing is worse than high school quality and i don't see your point at all. seems like someone just trying to use a lot of big words.
Thanks for pointing out that my writing is worse than high school quality. I believe you forgot to use "caps" where appropriate. Also, you seem to be using a fragmented sentence. I would tell you how old I am but I prefer to use base 2. If I type out my age in base 2 using a character string of "1"'s and "0"'s then you would probably assume the zero position is on the far right side when in reality, there is nothing preventing me from positioning my zero marker on the far left side. So I will not post my age.
philiprdutton
#9
Jul28-07, 06:27 PM
P: 120
Quote Quote by CRGreathouse View Post
Have you taken abstract algebra? You might be interested in the generalization of "prime" and "irreducible", as well as the study of systems where they don't coincide.
Thanks for the tip. I am just a plebeian when compared to a math guru like yourself. Actually, I am just interested in the problem of prime properties and how they relate stated axioms (in whatever system you are using). Consider the Peano axioms. What would happen if you did not define the successor function? Would any given natural number which was prime still be prime if you remove the successor function?

The funny thing about the Peano axioms is that most of them start out with "If b is a natural number..." Well, basically Peano states in his assumptions that you are given all the natural numbers. So, all the natural numbers that happen to be in the position of primes are there too. But if you stop writing down axioms before you define the successor function, then you can not have the notional of primality.

I am having trouble explaining all this. Basically I can create a system for counting with no fluffy extra axioms related to operations. Heck, let me just count to the 100th prime number: "da,da,da,da,da,da,da,da,da,....,da,da,da" There, you see that last "da"? That is in the same position on the number line as the 100th prime number as defined already. However, in my "da, da,da" counting system, I can not tell you what it means to be "prime."
CRGreathouse
#10
Jul28-07, 06:30 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by philiprdutton View Post
Thanks for pointing out that my writing is worse than high school quality. I believe you forgot to use "caps" where appropriate. Also, you seem to be using a fragmented sentence. I would tell you how old I am but I prefer to use base 2. If I type out my age in base 2 using a character string of "1"'s and "0"'s then you would probably assume the zero position is on the far right side when in reality, there is nothing preventing me from positioning my zero marker on the far left side. So I will not post my age.
I take it your age isn't a base-2 palindrome, then. Assuming you're less than 100 (left-to-right decimal), that narrows it down to {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84. 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98}. We're on to you.
CRGreathouse
#11
Jul28-07, 06:40 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by philiprdutton View Post
Thanks for the tip. I am just a plebeian when compared to a math guru like yourself.
I'm not nearly a guru like Matt Grime, HallsofIvy, or Hurkyl. I only have a bachelor's degree in math -- though I do try to keep up with recent developments.

If you want to read up on abstract algebra, here are some basic notes from the Web:
http://www.math.niu.edu/~beachy/aaol/contents.html

Quote Quote by philiprdutton View Post
Consider the Peano axioms. What would happen if you did not define the successor function? Would any given natural number which was prime still be prime if you remove the successor function?
Without the successor function you can't show that there are numbers other than 1. You can't define primes, squares, addition, fractions, or anything much.

Quote Quote by philiprdutton View Post
I am having trouble explain all this. Basically I can create a system for counting with no fluffy extra axioms related to operations. Heck, let me just count to the 100th prime number: "da,da,da,da,da,da,da,da,da,....,da,da,da" There, you see that last "da"? That is in the same position on the number line as the 100th prime number as defined already. However, in my "da, da,da" counting system, I can not tell you what it means to be "prime."
You'll have to be a lot more specific if you want to make sense out of a system weaker than Peano arithmetic.
philiprdutton
#12
Jul28-07, 06:49 PM
P: 120
Quote Quote by CRGreathouse View Post
Without the successor function you can't show that there are numbers other than 1. You can't define primes, squares, addition, fractions, or anything much.
But I am confused as to why all the peano axioms start out with "if b is a natural number"... Am I missing something? I read Peano and feel as if he assumes all the natural numbers are set into position on the number line even before he finishes all the axioms. I figured his successor function was just a means of getting around. It gets confusing like the chicken and egg dilemma.

Primes, squares, addition, fractions, etc. all have to do with permitted "operations." But I still believe the natural numbers are still implicitly defined and do sit in place on the number line whether the operational axioms are defined yet or not.
philiprdutton
#13
Jul28-07, 06:51 PM
P: 120
Quote Quote by CRGreathouse View Post
I take it your age isn't a base-2 palindrome, then. Assuming you're less than 100 (left-to-right decimal), that narrows it down to {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84. 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98}. We're on to you.
Well, if my age happens to be a base-2 palindrome then I know for sure I am not the age of an even number.
philiprdutton
#14
Jul28-07, 07:03 PM
P: 120
"Counting is all too easy. Figuring out how to talk about where you stopped is the hard part." - Philip Ronald Dutton
philiprdutton
#15
Jul28-07, 07:11 PM
P: 120
Quote Quote by CRGreathouse View Post
For what it's worth I see multiplication as the core relation, with addition as a more complex ....
Interesting! I must ponder for some time.
CRGreathouse
#16
Jul28-07, 07:14 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by philiprdutton View Post
But I am confused as to why all the peano axioms start out with "if b is a natural number"... Am I missing something? I read Peano and feel as if he assumes all the natural numbers are set into position on the number line even before he finishes all the axioms. I figured his successor function was just a means of getting around. It gets confusing like the chicken and egg dilemma.
The Peano axioms say that
  • 1 is a natural number
  • For all x, Sx is a natural number
  • For all x, Sx is not 1
  • For all x and y, x = y iff Sx = Sy
plus a number of things not relevant here.

The successor function is the only way to create new numbers in this system. The last property makes each number 1, S(1), S(S(1)), ... different.

There's really no chicken-egg problem -- unless you remove the successor operation. If you do that you'll need to add in a lot of tools to do most anything.

Quote Quote by philiprdutton View Post
Primes, squares, addition, fractions, etc. all have to do with permitted "operations." But I still believe the natural numbers are still implicitly defined and do sit in place on the number line whether the operational axioms are defined yet or not.
That's a philosophical statement, not a mathematical one. It's called Platonism and is largely out of favor today -- though I consider myself largely a mathematical platonist.
philiprdutton
#17
Jul28-07, 07:19 PM
P: 120
Quote Quote by CRGreathouse View Post
The Peano axioms say that
  • 1 is a natural number
  • For all x, Sx is a natural number
  • For all x, Sx is not 1
  • For all x and y, x = y iff Sx = Sy
plus a number of things not relevant here.
I am now confused about what "x" is. If within the Peano system, there are only natural numbers, then surely x is a natural number.

PS: thanks for chatting thus far!
CRGreathouse
#18
Jul28-07, 07:24 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by philiprdutton View Post
I am now confused about what "x" is. If within the Peano system, there are only natural numbers, then surely x is a natural number.
I presume you refer to "for all x, Sx is a natural number". That x is a natural number is obvious; that there is a successor to it is not obvious. The statement is essentially that there is a successor to every natural number,


Register to reply