Does Every Integer Greater Than 1 Have a Prime Divisor? A Proof by Contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter scottstapp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof by contradiction regarding the statement that every integer greater than 1 has a prime divisor. The original poster introduces a set of integers greater than 1 that are not divisible by any prime and attempts to explore the implications of this assumption.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the construction of a set S and the implications of assuming it is nonempty. They explore the properties of the smallest integer in this set and the relationships between its factors.

Discussion Status

The discussion has progressed through various interpretations and clarifications regarding the properties of integers and their factors. Participants have engaged in reasoning about the implications of the definitions and have reached a point where a contradiction is suggested, indicating a productive direction in the exploration of the proof.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the importance of justifying steps in the proof, particularly regarding the relationships between the integers involved and their membership in set S.

scottstapp
Messages
40
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let a be an integer greater than 1. Then there exists a prime that divides a.


Homework Equations


A prime is an integer that is greater than 1 but not composite


The Attempt at a Solution


Via Contradiction
S={x:x is an integer, x>1, x is not divisible by any prime }, assume S is nonempty.

I believe this is the set I must use, but I am not sure how to start this proof.

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let a be the smallest integer greater than 1 that is not divisible by a prime. I.e. the smallest element of your set S. Since a isn't prime, a=b*c where b>1 and c>1. Now what? How do b and c compare with a in size?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if I am understanding what you are getting at but this is what I am thinking:

Because a=b*c, b=a/c, c=a/b, so a=a2/cb, so cba=a2 but this is obvious. I think I am misinterpreting what you are getting at.
 
I'm trying to get you to tell me that b and c are smaller than a. Therefore they AREN'T in your set S. What does that mean about b and c?
 
Doesn't this mean that one of them must be 1? And therefore the other is a prime because it is only written as 1*c (or 1*b).
 
scottstapp said:
Doesn't this mean that one of them must be 1?

No. a isn't prime. So it's composite. So a=b*c where b and c are greater than 1. If they are not 1 and they are not in S, then what does the definition of S say about them?
 
Dick said:
No. a isn't prime. So it's composite. So a=b*c where b and c are greater than 1. If they are not 1 and they are not in S, then what does the definition of S say about them?

By being integers greater than 1 and not in S, this says that a and b are integers that are divisible by a prime.
 
Yes. Ok, so if b and c are divisible by primes what about a?
 
Dick said:
Yes. Ok, so if b and c are divisible by primes what about a?

Because bc divides a and a prime divides bc, then a prime divides a. Therefore a contradiction is reached.
 
  • #10
scottstapp said:
Because bc divides a and a prime divides bc, then a prime divides a. Therefore a contradiction is reached.

Exactly. So S must be empty.
 
  • #11
Thanks so much Dick. I figured I would attach my formal proof just in case of any errors.

Proof by Contradiction:
1. Let S={x:x is an integer, x>1, x is not divisible by any prime}, assume S is nonempty.
2. Let a be the smallest integer greater than 1 that is not divisible by a prime, therefore it is the smallest integer in S.
3. a is composite so there exist integers b and c such that a=bc where b>1 and c>1
4. From (2) we know that a is the smallest integer in S therefore b and c are not in set S.
5. From (3), because b and c are greater than 1 and not in S, they must be divisible by a prime.
6. Therefore, bc|a, prime|bc, so prime|a and a contradiction is reached because S is empty.
 
  • #12
You forgot to say that because a=b*c and b>1, and c>1 then b<a and c<a to justify your step 4. But other than that, it looks fine.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K