# whole prime number

by philiprdutton
Tags: number, prime
 PF Patron Sci Advisor Thanks Emeritus P: 38,429 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.
 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.
HW Helper
P: 3,682

## 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 by philiprdutton 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?
 HW Helper Sci Advisor P: 3,682 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.
P: 120
 Quote by CRGreathouse 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.
HW Helper
P: 3,682
 Quote by philiprdutton 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.
P: 120
 Quote by ice109 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.
P: 120
 Quote by CRGreathouse 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."
HW Helper
P: 3,682
 Quote by philiprdutton 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.
HW Helper
P: 3,682
 Quote by philiprdutton 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 by philiprdutton 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 by philiprdutton 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.
P: 120
 Quote by CRGreathouse 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.
P: 120
 Quote by CRGreathouse 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.
 P: 120 "Counting is all too easy. Figuring out how to talk about where you stopped is the hard part." - Philip Ronald Dutton
P: 120
 Quote by CRGreathouse 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.
HW Helper
P: 3,682
 Quote by philiprdutton 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 by philiprdutton 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.
P: 120
 Quote by CRGreathouse The Peano axioms say that1 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!
HW Helper