Is Every Positive Integer Divisible by 2, 3, or 5?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marcusmath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fractions Numbers
marcusmath
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I really didn't know how to word the title so sorry if it's a little confusing.
And I didn't know whether to post this in number theory or not but ah well.

The other day, I started thinking about this and I was just wondering if it had been done before or if it's even correct;

Half of all positive integers are divisible by 2,
A third are divisible by 3,
A quarter by 4 etc.

Now, of the third that are divisible by 3, a half of those numbers are also divisible by 2.
So 1/6 of positive integers are divisible by 3 and not 2.

I continued this trend to find;
\frac{1}{2} of p. ints are divisible by 2
\frac{1}{3}\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\right) are divisible by 3 and not 2
\frac{1}{5}\left(1-\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)\right) are divisible by 5 and not 3 or 2
\frac{1}{7}\left(1-\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{5}\left(1-\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)\right)\right)\right) are divisible by 7 and not 5, 3 or 2

If I sum all these to infinity, it should equal 1 as it will then cover all positive integers.

So could you by any chance verify the truth of this statement,

\sum^{\infty}_{p_{0}=2}\frac{1}{p_{0}}\left(1-\sum^{p_{0}-1}_{p_{1}=2}\frac{1}{p_{1}}\left(1-\sum^{p_{1}-1}_{p_{2}=2}\frac{1}{p_{2}}\left(...\right)\right)\right) = 1

I know this is quite awkward looking and I don't even know if I've used correct notation, I just sort of scrawled it down as I was thinking it.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
To make it a little easier: the sum of "divisible by 2" + "not divisible by 2 but divisible by 3" + "not divisible by 2 or 3 but divisible by 5" is "divisible by 2, 3, or 5" which is "not relatively prime to 2, 3, and 5":

f_1 = 1/2
f_2 = 1/2 + 1/2\cdot1/3 = 1 - 1/2\cdot2/3
f_3 = 1/2 + 1/2\cdot1/3 + 1/2\cdot2/3\cdot1/5 = 1 - 1/2\cdot2/3\cdot4/5
. . .
f_k = 1 - \sum_{q\in\mathbb{P},q\le p_k}\left(1-\frac1p\right)

Now instead of lots of sums, you only have one. All you need to show is that the sum in question tends to 0 as k goes to infinity (which is true).
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top