Is a Number Prime if It Has No Factors Less Than Its Square Root?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of natural numbers, specifically focusing on the concept of primality and factors in relation to a number's square root. The original poster seeks to prove that if a natural number M has no factors less than or equal to M1/2, then M is prime.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between sets and properties of numbers, questioning whether the absence of factors can imply primality. They discuss the implications of a number being composite and its factors in relation to its square root.

Discussion Status

Participants have provided insights and attempted proofs regarding the relationship between factors and primality. Some suggest that the original poster's reasoning is valid, while others question the necessity of using set theory in the argument. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of the theorem presented.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a theorem regarding composite numbers having factors less than or equal to their square root, which is central to the discussion. The original poster expresses uncertainty about transferring properties between sets and the validity of their assumptions.

Char. Limit
Gold Member
Messages
1,222
Reaction score
23

Homework Statement



Prove that if a given natural number M has no factors less than or equal to M1/2, then M is prime.

Homework Equations



None!

The Attempt at a Solution



So I was wondering, say I have two sets [itex]P[/itex] and [itex]Q[/itex]. Furthermore, say that [itex]P \bigcup Q = \mathbb{N}[/itex] and [itex]P \bigcap Q = \emptyset[/itex]. Now, can I assume that if all elements of set P obey a certain property, then any element of N that does not obey that property belongs to Q?

I ask because I'm trying to prove that if a natural number M has no factors less than or equal to M1/2 then M is prime. I'm hoping to use a proof that I almost have complete that if a natural number N is composite, then N has a factor less than or equal to N1/2, but I don't know if the property can transfer this way. Help?

EDIT: Also, my proof for the latter statement, if it helps:

Assume that N is composite and that it has no factors less than or equal to N1/2. Now, since N is composite, it has a factor A, which must be greater than N1/2 for the assumption to hold. Therefore, A>N1/2. Now, by inverting the two sides of the equation, we can see that A-1<N-1/2. Multiplying both sides by N, we get that N/A < N1/2. However, as A is a factor of N, N/A must be an integer B that is less than or equal to N1/2. Therefore, N = A*B, and B is a factor of N. But B is less than N1/2, which contradicts the original assumption. Therefore, if N is composite, N has a factor less than or equal to N1/2
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Char. Limit said:
So I was wondering, say I have two sets [itex]P[/itex] and [itex]Q[/itex]. Furthermore, say that [itex]P \bigcup Q = \mathbb{N}[/itex] and [itex]P \bigcap Q = \emptyset[/itex]. Now, can I assume that if all elements of set P obey a certain property, then any element of N that does not obey that property belongs to Q?

Yes. P and Q are mutually exclusive and their union is N (and they're each a subset of N). It is given that every member of P has a certain property. Now, a member of N does not have this property. This member must either be in P or Q. Since every member of P has this property, you must conclude that the member is in Q.

Char. Limit said:
Assume that N is composite and that it has no factors less than or equal to N1/2. Now, since N is composite, it has a factor A, which must be greater than N1/2 for the assumption to hold. Therefore, A>N1/2. Now, by inverting the two sides of the equation, we can see that A-1<N-1/2. Multiplying both sides by N, we get that N/A < N1/2. However, as A is a factor of N, N/A must be an integer B that is less than or equal to N1/2. Therefore, N = A*B, and B is a factor of N. But B is less than N1/2, which contradicts the original assumption. Therefore, if N is composite, N has a factor less than or equal to N1/2

This should work. Another possibility is the following:

Assume that N is composite and that it has no factors less than or equal to N1/2. So N = xy, where x > N1/2 and y > N1/2. So:

xy > N1/2N1/2 = N, so N > N. -><-
 
So I was wondering, say I have two sets [itex]P[/itex] and [itex]Q[/itex]. Furthermore, say that [itex]P \bigcup Q = \mathbb{N}[/itex] and [itex]P \bigcap Q = \emptyset[/itex]. Now, can I assume that if all elements of set P obey a certain property, then any element of N that does not obey that property belongs to Q?

Yes. I suppose you're trying to show that a number is either composite or prime, but I don't think you need to prove it--it's basic enough that you can take it as an axiom.

I ask because I'm trying to prove that if a natural number M has no factors less than or equal to M1/2 then M is prime. I'm hoping to use a proof that I almost have complete that if a natural number N is composite, then N has a factor less than or equal to N1/2, but I don't know if the property can transfer this way. Help?

Do you have to use set theory? I would just say that M is either prime or composite. We know it can't be composite because that would violate the theorem you just proved, so it must be prime.
 
Excellent! Also, great proof there, GB7... I hadn't even considered that.

So using the theorem I proved in post 1, I can just say that any number N without a factor less than or equal to N1/2 is prime? Thanks!
 
Char. Limit said:
Excellent! Also, great proof there, GB7... I hadn't even considered that.

So using the theorem I proved in post 1, I can just say that any number N without a factor less than or equal to N1/2 is prime? Thanks!

Correct.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K