Infinitely Many Primes: Proofs & Homological Algebra

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter masnevets
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Primes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the exploration of various proofs demonstrating that there are infinitely many prime numbers. Participants express interest in unique or unconventional proofs, including those related to homological algebra and modular arithmetic, as well as the divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of primes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant is compiling a list of creative proofs of the infinitude of primes and invites others to contribute, specifically seeking a proof from homological algebra.
  • Another participant shares a link to a resource containing various proofs of the infinitude of primes.
  • A participant mentions they have written their own proof and intends to share it later.
  • A proposed proof involves assuming a finite number of primes and demonstrating a contradiction by comparing the number of products of primes to a power of 2.
  • Another participant discusses a proof using modular arithmetic, specifically focusing on primes congruent to 3 modulo 4, and outlines a contradiction arising from the assumption of a finite number of such primes.
  • A later reply presents a proof that constructs an integer based on the number of primes and shows that this leads to a contradiction, thus supporting the claim of infinitely many primes.
  • There is a mention of exploring different proofs regarding the divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and approaches to the proofs of the infinitude of primes, but there is no consensus on a single proof or method. Multiple competing views and proofs are presented, indicating an ongoing exploration rather than a resolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some proofs rely on specific assumptions about the nature of primes and their distributions, which may not be universally accepted or applicable in all contexts. The discussion includes various mathematical techniques and approaches that may have limitations based on their definitions or underlying principles.

masnevets
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I am for some reason interested in creative or weird proofs of the fact that there are infinitely many prime numbers. I have started writing down all of the proofs that seemed sufficiently different in the following file:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ssam/primes.pdf

If you know of any more, please let me know! In particular, I am really hoping for a proof from homological algebra.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I wrote a proof a few months ago, I will post it here when I get home.
 
Suppose there are only n primes, and they are [tex]p_1 ... p_n[/tex] these are all greater than or equal to 2.

every number <= 2^k will be a product of powers of prime numbers, and all those powers have exponent <=k because all primes are at least 2. Those products thus have the form

[tex]\prod_{i=1}^{n} p_i^{a_i}[/tex]

with [tex]a_i <= k[/tex]

There are at most [tex]k^n[/tex] such products. for sufficiently large k, [tex]2^k[/tex] will be larger than [tex]k^n[/tex], so there must be numbers that are not a product of these primes.
 
There are also plenty of proofs involving modular arithmetic, e.g. proof that there are infinitely many primes 3 modulo 4:

Quite evidently, any number 3 modulo 4 must have a prime factor that is also 3 modulo 4. Supposing there is a finite number of primes 3 modulo 4, we consider

[tex]q = \prod_{p\equiv\mbox{3 (mod 4)}}^{} p[/tex]

If q = 3 (modulo 4), then we reach a contradiction by showing that no prime 3 modulo 4 divides into q + 4, if q = 1 (modulo 4), we reach a contradiction with q + 2.

Edit:

Also, you can look at different proofs of the divergence of the sum of the primes' reciprocals.
 
Last edited:
The promised proof:

Suppose there is a finite number of primes, n. Consider the integer [tex]m = 2^{2(n+1)}[/tex]. Of course, m > n. Now, for every integer [tex]1 \leq k \leq m[/tex], factor out its largest square factor, so to express k as [tex]ab^{2}[/tex] where in the prime factorization of a, the exponents are either 0 or 1. Because there are only n primes, there are only [tex]2^n[/tex] possible values for a. Also, since [tex]b^2\leq2^{2(n + 1)}[/tex], we get [tex]b\leq2^{n+1}[/tex], so there are at most [tex]2^{n+1}[/tex] possible values for b and b^2 consequently. Since [tex]k = ab^{2}[/tex], it follows that there are at most [tex]2^{n}2^{n+1} = 2^{2n + 1} < m[/tex] possible values for k. But k has been said to be any integer from 1 to m; contradiction. So our assumption that there is a finite number of primes is false.
 
Last edited:
http://sums.mcgill.ca/delta-epsilon/mag/0610/mmm061034.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

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