Euclid's Proof: Infinity of Primes

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kenewbie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinity Primes
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 3K views
kenewbie
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
Euclid's proof:

1) Assume there is a finite number of primes.
2) Let Pn be the largest prime.
3) Let X be the P1 * P2 ... * Pn + 1

At this point the statement is that "X cannot be divided by P1 through Pn", but why is that? This is not self-obvious to me. How can I know this?

k
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Because dividing by any of those primes gives a remainder of 1, not 0:

[tex]\frac{P_1P_2...P_{i-1}P_iP_{i+1}...Pn+ 1}{Pi}= P_1P_2...P_{i-1}P_{i+1}...Pn+ \frac{1}{P_i}[/tex]
The first term is an integer but the second is not.
 
Minor aside: "the infinity of primes" is bad grammar. The noun form is wrong here -- you want the adjective "infinite", such as in "the infinite set of primes".
 
HallsofIvy said:
[tex]\frac{P_1P_2...P_{i-1}P_iP_{i+1}...Pn+ 1}{Pi}= P_1P_2...P_{i-1}P_{i+1}...Pn+ \frac{1}{P_i}[/tex]
The first term is an integer but the second is not.

That made perfect sense, thank you!

k