Is the set of prime number finite? if?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shad0w7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Prime Set
Shad0w7
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Let's say I have this statement. {a^p | p is prime and p < N}

a is considered a string so

so a^2 = aa, a^3 = aaa and so on...

anyway, in this case, since it says that p< N, then is mean that p will be finite right??
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
First, let me point out that the answer to the question asked in the title, "is the set of prime numbers finite", is "NO"- the set of all prime numbers is infinite- that proof was given by Euclid, thousands of years ago.

But the answer to the question asked in your text, "Is the set of all numbers of the form a^p where a is a given number and p is a prime number less than N finite" is "YES". In fact, the "prime" part is irrelevant. If a is a fixed number, then the set of all a^n, where n is any positive integer less than N, is finite.
 
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