Euclid Proof of Infinite Primes

In summary, Euclid's proof states that if you multiply all known primes from 2 to Pn and add 1 to it, the resulting number will always leave a remainder of 1 when divided by any of the known primes, thus making it not divisible by any of the primes. This is because adding 1 to a multiple of any known prime will always result in a remainder of 1, and multiplying all the primes and adding 1 will create a number that is not divisible by any of the factors of the product of all known primes.
  • #1
Pupil
165
0
Near the end of Euclid's proof he says that if you multiply all our known primes from 2 to Pn and then add 1 to it, the number isn't divisible by any of our primes up to Pn, because it leaves the remainder 1. Why is that? How does he know that it will always leave the remainder 1? Couldn't adding 1 just make a slightly larger number that has a factor that might be 2 or Pn? If someone can set my stoopid brain straight I'd be very happy. Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
We have that 2,..,p_n is a supposed list of all primes and we have constructed

2*3*..*p_n+1

By construction it is one more than a multiple of any known prime (i.e. 2,..,p_n).

Or, let me put it this way, I have something that is a multiple of 2, and I add one to it. Is the result a multiple of 2?
 
  • #3
matt grime said:
We have that 2,..,p_n is a supposed list of all primes and we have constructed

2*3*..*p_n+1

By construction it is one more than a multiple of any known prime (i.e. 2,..,p_n).

Or, let me put it this way, I have something that is a multiple of 2, and I add one to it. Is the result a multiple of 2?

No, as far as I can tell by doing a few examples in my head. I can maybe see how 2n + 1 never yields a multiple of 2 since 2n is always even, and adding 1 makes it odd, thereby making it indivisible by 2. Your multiple of 2 example is really simple, so I can see easily how to prove that result, but I don't see how it is known that multiplying all the primes and adding 1 constructs a number such that it isn't a multiple of any known prime.
 
  • #4
To kind of clarify the problem I'm having: how do we know kn+1 is not divisible by k or any of the factors that make up k?
 
  • #5
Because if you divide kn+ 1 by k you get a quotient of n with remainder 1.
 
  • #6
Pupil said:
To kind of clarify the problem I'm having: how do we know kn+1 is not divisible by k or any of the factors that make up k?

Because kn is divisible by k (leaving a remainder of 0), so one more than that would leave a remainder of 1.
 
  • #7
[tex]\frac{kn+1}{k}=n+\frac{1}{k},[/tex]

where n is an integer.

If p is a factor of k, then

[tex]\frac{kn+1}{p}=n'+\frac{1}{k},[/tex] where n' is an integer.
 
  • #8
Pupil said:
To kind of clarify the problem I'm having: how do we know kn+1 is not divisible by k or any of the factors that make up k?

perhaps it would be easier to see it this way: if you cycle through the integers, a multiple of k will appear ever k integers starting with 0 then k then 2k, 3k, etc. If P is the product of all known primes, then it is divisible by every prime, so in order to get a number that's divisible by any factor of P (ie any prime) you need to add at least 2 (the smallest prime) but 1>2 so [tex]2\not| P[/tex]
 

1. What is Euclid's proof of infinite primes?

Euclid's proof of infinite primes states that there are infinitely many prime numbers. This means that there is no largest prime number and that there will always be more prime numbers to discover.

2. How did Euclid prove this?

Euclid's proof is based on the assumption that there is a finite number of prime numbers. He then uses a logical argument to show that this assumption leads to a contradiction. Therefore, there must be an infinite number of prime numbers.

3. Can you explain the logical argument used in Euclid's proof?

Euclid's proof uses a method called proof by contradiction. It begins by assuming that there is a finite number of prime numbers and then shows that this assumption leads to a contradiction. This contradiction proves that the original assumption was false, and therefore, there must be an infinite number of prime numbers.

4. Is Euclid's proof still valid today?

Yes, Euclid's proof of infinite primes is still considered valid today. It is a fundamental proof in mathematics and has not been disproven or replaced by any other proof.

5. What is the significance of Euclid's proof of infinite primes?

Euclid's proof is significant because it shows that the set of prime numbers is infinite, which has important implications in number theory and other areas of mathematics. It also demonstrates the power of logical reasoning and proof by contradiction in mathematics.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Math
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
16
Views
3K
Back
Top