Euclid Proof of Infinite Primes

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pupil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Primes Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, specifically focusing on the construction of a number by multiplying all known primes and adding one. Participants explore the reasoning behind why this new number is not divisible by any of the known primes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how adding 1 to the product of known primes guarantees that the result is not divisible by any of those primes, expressing uncertainty about the validity of this reasoning.
  • Another participant reiterates that the construction of the number (2*3*...*Pn + 1) is designed to be one more than a multiple of any known prime, suggesting that adding 1 to a multiple of a prime results in a number that cannot be a multiple of that prime.
  • Some participants provide examples to illustrate that adding 1 to a multiple of 2 results in an odd number, which cannot be divisible by 2, thereby supporting the argument that the constructed number is not divisible by any known primes.
  • There are clarifications on the mathematical expression kn + 1, with participants discussing the division of this expression by k and its factors, emphasizing that it leaves a remainder of 1.
  • One participant suggests that to be divisible by any prime factor of the product of known primes, the number would need to be at least 2 greater than that product, reinforcing the idea that the constructed number is not divisible by any known primes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and agreement regarding the reasoning behind the construction of the number and its properties. Some participants seem to grasp the concept, while others continue to seek clarification, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved in terms of full consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical expressions and reasoning without fully resolving the underlying assumptions or providing a complete proof of the claims made. The discussion highlights the complexity of the topic and the need for further exploration of the concepts involved.

Pupil
Messages
165
Reaction score
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
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?
 
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.
 
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 if you divide kn+ 1 by k you get a quotient of n with remainder 1.
 
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.
 
\frac{kn+1}{k}=n+\frac{1}{k},

where n is an integer.

If p is a factor of k, then

\frac{kn+1}{p}=n'+\frac{1}{k}, where n' is an integer.
 
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 2\not| P
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K