Show that any composite three-digit number must have a prime factor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math100
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Composite Prime
AI Thread Summary
Any composite three-digit number must have a prime factor less than or equal to 31, as shown through a proof by contradiction. Assuming a composite number has a prime factor greater than 31 leads to a contradiction, since the smallest prime factor greater than 31 is 37, resulting in a product greater than 999. The discussion emphasizes the importance of the lemma stating that the largest prime factor of any composite positive integer is less than or equal to its square root. The proof structure is critiqued for clarity, suggesting that the lemma should precede the main proof. Overall, the argument solidifies the necessity of prime factors in composite three-digit numbers.
Math100
Messages
813
Reaction score
229
Homework Statement
Show that any composite three-digit number must have a prime factor less than or equal to ## 31 ##.
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof:

Suppose for the sake of contradiction that any composite three-digit number
must have a prime factor not less than or equal to ## 31 ##.
Let ## n ## be any composite three-digit number such that ## n=ab ## for
some ## a,b\in\mathbb{Z} ## where ## a,b>1 ##.
Note that the smallest prime factor greater than ## 31 ## is ## 37 ##.
Then we have ## a,b\geq 37 ##.
Thus ## n=ab\geq (37)^2=1369 ##.
This is a contradiction because ## 1369 ## is not a composite three-digit number.
Therefore, any composite three-digit number must have a prime factor less than or equal to ## 31 ##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Math100 said:
Then we have ## a,b\geq 37 ##.
Better would be "##max(a, b) \ge 37##"
The largest three-digit number is 999. ##\sqrt{999} \approx 31.61##, so if ##n = ab## is a three-digit composite number that is smaller than 999, the larger of its prime factors must be less than or equal to 31.
 
  • Like
Likes Math100
I omitted the fact that for any composite, positive integer N, the largest prime factor must be less than or equal to ##\sqrt N##. You might want to prove that as a lemma that supports the problem you're working on.
 
Mark44 said:
I omitted the fact that for any composite, positive integer N, the largest prime factor must be less than or equal to ##\sqrt N##. You might want to prove that as a lemma that supports the problem you're working on.
Do I need to change my proof to another method? Or is proof by contradiction okay?
 
I don't see anything wrong with your proof, except that it less direct than it could be.
 
Mark44 said:
I don't see anything wrong with your proof, except that it less direct than it could be.
About where should I insert the lemma which you've mentioned?
 
Math100 said:
About where should I insert the lemma which you've mentioned?
A lemma should come before a proof that refers to it.
 
Lemma: For any composite positive integer ## N ##,
the largest prime factor must be less than or equal to ## \sqrt{N} ##.

Proof:

Note that the largest composite three-digit number is ## 999 ##.
Thus ## \sqrt{N}=\sqrt{999}\approx 31.61 ##.
Therefore, any composite three-digit number must have a prime factor
less than or equal to ## 31 ##.
 
But you should provide a proof of the lemma...
 
  • #10
Math100 said:
Homework Statement:: Show that any composite three-digit number must have a prime factor less than or equal to ## 31 ##.
Relevant Equations:: None.

Proof:

Suppose for the sake of contradiction that any composite three-digit number
must have a prime factor not less than or equal to ## 31 ##.
This is not the negation of the original proposition. The negation should be:

There exists a composite three-digit number with no primes factors less than or equal to 31.
 
  • Like
Likes Math100
Back
Top