- #1

- 4

- 0

Thank you so much in advance.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter msminnie
- Start date

- #1

- 4

- 0

Thank you so much in advance.

- #2

cristo

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 8,122

- 74

Do you have any ideas how to proceed? Try taking the statement and deriving a contradiction.

- #3

- 4

- 0

- #4

cristo

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 8,122

- 74

- #5

- 4

- 0

There cannot be a largest prime number.

Why? Because if you made the assumption that you can list all the prime numbers with a finite or including the largest number, than any number great than 1 and not included on the list must divide by a number on the list. Then if you took all the numbers on the list,

Multiplied them together and added one to the total, you will find the resulting number does not divide by any of the numbers on your list, therefore it is prime. But because of

this, your original list is flawed because your list had all the prime numbers listed, so such a starting point cannot exist. Because of that there is no largest prime number.

Example:

Let’s say that 5 was the largest prime number.

2x3x5=30

30+1=31

31 is a prime number so your original formula is in error. If you multiply 2x3x5x31=930

930+1=931 which is prime so once again your original formula is in error.

Therefore you cannot have a starting list that includes the largest prime number, therefore it cannot exist.

I know that is close but I also know it is not exactly on the money as I know my teacher and he lives eats and breaths philosophy and so he has a certain way for EVERYTHING lol.

I do appreciate you taking the time to even talk to me, but I guess I will continue on Google, I am all goggled out lol.

- #6

cristo

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 8,122

- 74

- #7

- 4

- 0

Thanks so much again. You have a great night

Corinne

Share: