I Math Myth: A prime is only divisible by 1 and itself

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime
AI Thread Summary
The common definition of a prime number as being only divisible by 1 and itself is misleading, as it conflates primality with irreducibility. A prime number divides a product and must also divide at least one of the factors, which is a more accurate definition. While irreducible integers are indeed prime, this relationship does not hold in all mathematical domains, such as in the ring of integers with square roots of negative numbers. An example illustrates that 6 can be factored into irreducible elements that are not prime. This nuanced understanding highlights the complexity of number theory beyond basic school definitions.
Messages
19,792
Reaction score
10,749
From @fresh_42's Insight
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/10-math-things-we-all-learnt-wrong-at-school/

This is wrong. Well, yes and no. Strictly speaking, this definition describes irreducibility. And irreducibility is different from primality. A prime number is actually a number, that if it divides a product, then it has to divide one of the factors. $$7\,|\,28=2\cdot 14 \;\Longrightarrow \;7\,|\,2\text{ or }7\,|\,14$$ $$4\,|\,12=2\cdot 6\text{ but }4\,\nmid \,2 \text{ and } 4\,\nmid \,6$$ It is a bit more complicated, but it is the correct definition. However, irreducible integers are prime integers and vice versa which is why the correct definition is replaced at school by the more handy one. However, there are domains in which this is not the case. The standard example is ##\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]## where $$6=2\cdot 3=(1+\sqrt{-5})\cdot (1-\sqrt{-5})$$ is a decomposition into irreducible factors that are not prime.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What is going on here ?
 
BvU said:
What is going on here ?
I divided up parts of @fresh_42's latest Insight to facilitate discussion on each
 
That's 11 entries on the unanswered threads list !
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Likes Greg Bernhardt
I'm glad that my teacher in grade school didn't teach these facts.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
999
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
142
Views
9K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top