Undergrad Mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the identification of mutually disjoint sets of integers greater than 1, where each set consists of the powers of a "root" r, defined as an integer without integer roots. These roots include all prime numbers and some composite numbers, forming a partitioning of positive integers analogous to how primes function in multiplication. The participants confirm that the union of these sets encompasses all positive integers and that the sets are indeed disjoint, as demonstrated through prime factorization. The conversation also raises questions about the terminology used to describe these sets and their mathematical properties. Overall, the findings suggest a novel perspective on the structure of integer powers and their relationships.
Ventrella
Messages
28
Reaction score
4
I identified what appears to be a partitioning of all integers > 1 into mutually disjoint sets. Each set consists of an infinite series of integers that are all the powers of what I am calling a "root" r (r is an integer that has no integer roots of its own, meaning: there is no number x^n that equals r, where x > 1 and n > 0).

For example: here are the first few integers of the first 5 sets:

2^n = 2, 4, 8, 16, 32...
3^n = 3, 9, 27, 81...
5^n = 5, 25, 125...
6^n = 6, 36...
7^n = 7, 49...

These roots include all the prime numbers, but they also include some composites. Analogous to how the primes are fundamental to multiplication, these roots are fundamental to exponentiation.

I am curious if there is an official name for these sets. Have I used proper definitions and terms? Is my assumption correct that these are mutually disjoint sets, the union of which are all the positive integers?

Thank you!
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The terminology is that each of the sets is the orbit of its root (which would be called a 'generator' in group theory), where we consider the multiplicative group of positive integers as acting on itself.

Yes your assumption is correct. The union of all the orbits is all the integers because any integer that is not in another orbit is the root of its own orbit.

To see that the orbits are disjoint, we proceed as follows.
If two orbits intersect then, considering the prime factorisation of an element in the intersection, and using the uniqueness of prime factorisations, we see that the roots of the two orbits must have the same set of prime factors
Let the prime factorisations of the roots be ##p_1^{a_1}...p_m^{a_n}## and ##p_1^{b_1}...p_n^{b_n}##, where all ##a_i## and ##b_i## are positive integers. The set of all ##a_i## must be coprime (GCF=1), because if the GCF is ##k>1## then the item we thought was the root is the ##k##th element in the orbit of the lower integer ##p_1^{a_1/k}...p_m^{a_n/k}##. the same goes for the set of ##b_i##.

The ##k##th elements of the two orbits are ####p_1^{ka_1}...p_m^{ka_n}## and ##p_1^{kb_1}...p_n^{kb_n}##. Let the first element in the intersection of the orbits be the ##j##th element of the first orbit and the ##k##th element of the second orbit and assume WLOG that ##k>j##. Then we must have ##ja_i=kb_i## for all ##i##, so that ##b_i=a_i\frac jk##.

Let ##c/d## be the form of the fraction ##j/k## that has all possible cancellations made, so that ##c,d## are coprime. Then we have ##b_i=a_i\frac cd## for all ##i##. So it must be the case that ##d## divides ##a_i## for all ##i##. Hence the ##a_i## are not coprime, contrary to assumption. Hence by contradiction, the intersection of the two orbits must be empty.
 
Ventrella said:
I identified what appears to be a partitioning of all integers > 1 into mutually disjoint sets. Each set consists of an infinite series of integers that are all the powers of what I am calling a "root" r (r is an integer that has no integer roots of its own, meaning: there is no number x^n that equals r, where x > 1 and n > 0).

For example: here are the first few integers of the first 5 sets:

2^n = 2, 4, 8, 16, 32...
3^n = 3, 9, 27, 81...
5^n = 5, 25, 125...
6^n = 6, 36...
7^n = 7, 49...

These roots include all the prime numbers, but they also include some composites. Analogous to how the primes are fundamental to multiplication, these roots are fundamental to exponentiation.

I am curious if there is an official name for these sets. Have I used proper definitions and terms? Is my assumption correct that these are mutually disjoint sets, the union of which are all the positive integers?

Thank you!
It seems you just need for your generators to not be powers of other generators ( obvious) but I don't know if this is the only way. Primes by themselves will not be enough, e.g., 6 will not be generated by primes.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K