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.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Euclid Proof of Infinite Primes

Loading...

Similar Threads - Euclid Proof Infinite | Date |
---|---|

I Question about Euclid's parallel postulate (5th postulate). | Sep 30, 2017 |

A How did Saccheri prove Euclid's Fifth Postulate? | Aug 22, 2017 |

Euclid's elements book 3 proposition 20 | Jun 18, 2015 |

Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes | Aug 9, 2013 |

Alternative Proofs To Euclid's Propositions | Nov 11, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**