How do primes come out of Peano arithmetic?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between prime numbers and Peano arithmetic, exploring how prime numbers emerge from the structure defined by Peano spaces. Participants delve into definitions of addition and multiplication within this framework, the properties of prime numbers, and the implications of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines the Peano space and defines natural numbers, addition, and multiplication recursively.
  • Another participant defines a prime number in terms of divisibility, stating that a number p is prime if p|(a*b) implies p|a or p|b.
  • Several participants express curiosity about the structural significance of prime numbers in multiplication, suggesting that primes might serve as a 'basis' for natural numbers.
  • Discussion includes the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, with participants noting that every natural number greater than 1 can be expressed uniquely as a product of primes.
  • One participant proposes a representation of natural numbers using tuples of exponents corresponding to their prime factorization, suggesting a potential structure that could form a monoid.
  • There are reflections on the implications of defining operations on these tuples and the potential for further mathematical exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of primes and their foundational role in number theory. While there is some agreement on the uniqueness of prime factorization, the discussion remains open-ended regarding the implications and definitions surrounding primes as a basis for natural numbers.

Contextual Notes

Some definitions and concepts presented are not fully rigorous, and participants acknowledge the need for clarification and refinement of their ideas. The discussion also touches on metamathematical considerations without reaching a consensus on the broader implications.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in number theory, mathematical foundations, and the properties of prime numbers may find this discussion particularly relevant.

Kindayr
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Let (N, s(n), 0) be a Peano space. That is, N=\{1,2,3,\dots \} is a set in which http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_arithmetic" can be used.

We can then define:
  • 0=\varnothing, 1=\{0\}, 2=\{0,1\},\dots \implies n=\{0,1,2,\dots ,n-2,n-1\}
  • s(a)=a\cup \{a\}\implies s(a)=a+1


From here we can define both addition and multiplication. I was wondering how the properties of primes come to be. That is, what makes 19=\{0,1,2,\dots ,18\} prime and 4=\{0,1,2,3\} not prime.

I've never really studied Number Theory, so I'm not strong in it at all.

(If you've noticed, I really like Peano spaces)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, first define addition the usual recursive way:

n+0=0
n+s(m)=s(n+m)

Then define multiplication the usual recursive way

n*0=0
n*s(m)=n*m+n

Then we define that "n divides m" if there is a number x such that n*x=m. We write n|m.

Then we define a number p (which is nonzero and not one) to be prime if p|(a*b) implies that p|a or p|b.
 
I guess I failed to explain what I was really wishing to ask.

I was just wondering how so much power and structure comes out of the prime numbers with respect to multiplication.

Maybe my question is more metamathematical than I thought it would be when I was thinking of it earlier today.

Nonetheless, thanks micromass for your help! :)

Also, could one consider the set of primes \{2,3,5,\dots\} as a 'basis' for the natural numbers with respect to multiplication? Is that what the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is basically saying?
 
Kindayr said:
I guess I failed to explain what I was really wishing to ask.

I was just wondering how so much power and structure comes out of the prime numbers with respect to multiplication.

Maybe my question is more metamathematical than I thought it would be when I was thinking of it earlier today.

Nonetheless, thanks micromass for your help! :)

Also, could one consider the set of primes \{2,3,5,\dots\} as a 'basis' for the natural numbers with respect to multiplication? Is that what the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is basically saying?
You could easily say that the prime numbers are a basis for all natural numbers > 1 since every natural number greater than 1 is a product of primes. But what then is the basis of 1? Also the fundamental theorem of arithematic is more stronger than that since it says that there is "only one way" to express a number greater than 1 as a product of prime(s) (you don't count P(1)*P(2) as different from P(2)*P(1) etc. also P(1) is considered to be simply the product a prime, i.e. P(1)).
 
I was just fooling around in my head with this idea as the primes as a basis.

Let a\in\mathbb N and let p,p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},\dots,p_{n} be all the primes such that 1<p_{1}<p_{2}<p_{3}<\cdots<p_{n}=p\leq a. By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, we know that there exists a unique prime factorization of a. That is, a=p_{1}^{e_{1}}p_{2}^{e_{2}}\cdots p_{n}^{e_{n}}. So we can represent a with the n-tuple a\simeq (e_{1},e_{2},\dots,e_{n})\in\mathbb N^{n}. Note that 1\simeq (0,0,\dots,0)\in\mathbb N^{n}.

Define the binary operation \oplus : \mathbb N^{n}\times \mathbb N^{n} \to \mathbb N^{n} such that \oplus ((e_{1},e_{2},\dots,e_{n}),(f_{1},f_{2},\dots,f_{n}))=(e_{1}+f_{1},e_{2}+f_{2},\dots,e_{n}+f_{n}). Note that this corresponds to normal multiplication in \mathbb N. We could also define equivalence classes in \mathbb N^{n} that correspond to congruence in \mathbb Z_{p}.

I think this pretty cool hahaha, because then with respect to some norm, we could assign 'lengths' to each of this n-tuples. So you could find which numbers are related with respect to length (notice the primes are all of length 1, and are orthogonal to one another).

I just thought this was cool, because I think this forms a monoid at least. The once we have a monoid, we could extend it as a Grothendiek group, I think. I just though some cool things could be done with it.

I think my definitions are a little sloppy, and could be fixed, but I hope I'm getting what I'm trying to convey over. I can make it more rigourous later in the day as I just woke up heh.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
514
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K