Making an existentially-quanified statement to define composite number and prime

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iwantttt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Composite Prime
Iwantttt
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Sorry if I'm writing on wrong board.

Homework Statement



1) Write an existentially quantified statement to express conditions for composite number ( composite number m is greater than 1 and there is a natural number greater than besides 1 and m, that divides m)
2) Writing definition using symbolic notation for prime numbers? (p is greater than 1, only natural numbers greater than 0 thatt divides p are 1 and p)

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


∃ m ∈ ℕ, m ∣ n => 1<m<n
for the composite

∀ a,b ∈ ℕ: a/b=p ∧ a=p ∧ b=1
for the prime

I'm 100% sure I'm doing something wrong.. Can anyone help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Iwantttt said:

The Attempt at a Solution


∃ m ∈ ℕ, m ∣ n => 1<m<n
for the composite

If m does not divide n, your statement always holds so every number ends up being composite. You shouldn't be using implications to do this. Try something like
∃ m ∈ ℕ, (_____ and _____)

where you fill in the blanks

∀ a,b ∈ ℕ: a/b=p ∧ a=p ∧ b=1
for the prime

Why is a/b=p here? Primes aren't defined based on what divides to get them
 
Ok. thanks for the advice. How does this look?

∃ m ∈ ℕ, m∣n ∧ 1<m<n
for the composite

∀ n ∈ ℕ: n∣p ⇔ n=1 ∧ n=p
for the prime
 
It looks good to me.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top