Is the concept of prime numbers biased by their factorization definitions?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sciencecrazy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bias Factors Primes
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the classification of prime numbers, introducing the concepts of "type-2" and "type-3" primes. Type-2 primes are defined as numbers with no factors other than 1 and themselves, while type-3 primes have no triplet of factors apart from 1 and the number itself. It is established that type-2 primes are a subset of type-3 primes, and all two-digit numbers qualify as type-3 primes. The conversation raises questions about the potential bias in defining primes based on factorization, suggesting that this classification may render the concept of primes abstract or random.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of prime numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with number theory concepts
  • Knowledge of semiprimes and their significance in cryptography
  • Basic mathematical factorization skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and applications of semiprimes in cryptography
  • Explore advanced number theory topics, including the distribution of prime numbers
  • Study the implications of prime factorization in computational complexity
  • Investigate the concept of coprimality and its relevance in number theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, number theorists, cryptographers, and anyone interested in the foundational aspects of prime numbers and their classifications.

sciencecrazy
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
--> Why are prime numbers so important to number theory? (Apart from speculations of being connected to energy levels of complex quantum systems.)

--> Let for time being, primes that we know of, be called primes of "type-2". Here '2' comes from the definition of primes. Since we consider primes as those numbers, which have no "pair" of factors, apart from 1 and itself.
If a number c is not prime, then c= a*b has atleast some a and b ≠1 or c.

--> Let us now call a number, a prime of "type-3",such that number has no 3-tuple of factors apart from 1 or number itself.
It's converse can be stated as:
d = a*b*c
where a,b,c ≠ 1or d.

--> it can be observed that primes of 'type 2' are actually subset of 'type 3'.
--> All 2-digit numbers are primes of type 3.
--> If we go on increasing our type numbers, all smaller types are actually subset of larger types.

--> Doesn't this makes idea of primes look abstract or random, and defining them on basis of 'pairs of factors' a kind-of bias?
--> My apolgies, if i said something wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, sciencecrazy,
primes, as it is often said, are the 'building blocks' of natural numbers (the numbers you use to count: 1, 2, 3, 4, ...). The natural numbers are "bags of primes": you can imagine each one as a little bag containing a collection of primes (possibly repeated) inside. The content of this bag is a kind of "signature", personal and unique for each number: the number 20, for example, has two 2's and one 5 in its bag, and it is the only number with this content; another number would have a different collection of primes in its bag. The number 1 is the owner of the empty bag, with no primes in it. Many properties in number theory are traceable to these "bags": for example, two numbers are coprime when the intersection of their bags is empty.

As for your "type-n" classification, consider the differences between types. For example, think of the "type-3" primes which are *not* of "type-2". These are numbers with exactly two primes in their bags, neither more nor less. They are known as "semiprimes", and they play a role in cryptography. The principle is that, for very large numbers, multiplying two primes to produce a semiprime is very easy; while, on the other hand, having the semiprime and trying to find the two primes that compose it is computationally very expensive.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K