1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Trying to do a non-rigorous direct proof

  1. Aug 10, 2013 #1

    ull

    User Avatar

    Statements:
    x is an integer
    x is a prime number if x doesnt consist of any prime factors ≤√x

    Proof:
    Since (√x + 1) * (√x + 1) > √x * √x
    x must be a prime

    Questions:

    Whould you consider this a non-rigorous direct proof?
    If not, what does it lack?
    Is this a good approach trying to prove it?

    The proof was meant to be like this:

    Since √(x + 1) * √(x + 1) > √x * √x
    x must be a prime
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 10, 2013 #2
    Recall that every integer >1 has a (unique) prime factorization. Now, suppose that ##x## is not prime, and further has no prime factor ##p_1 \leq \sqrt{x}## (so that ##p_1 > \sqrt{x}##); then ##x## has factorization ##x = p_1???##. What possible values can ##?## take? (Hint: what happens if ##? > \sqrt{x}##)
     
  4. Aug 10, 2013 #3

    ull

    User Avatar

    Please dont post any more clues just jet im trying to figure it out it :):)
    I dont know if this translates very well, but: "I´m going to sleep on it " ;)
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2013
  5. Aug 10, 2013 #4

    verty

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I know you said no more hints, but this hint is just too useful not to suggest.

    Hint: write the smallest divisor (not counting 1 of course) as ##\sqrt{x} + ε##.

    Hmm, I wonder if this counts as a direct proof, probably not.
     
  6. Aug 11, 2013 #5

    jbriggs444

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is always a good idea to start with a proper statement of what it is you are trying to prove.

    "For all positive integer x, if x has no prime factors less than or equal to its square root then x is prime"

    One problem with this formulation is that it is false. The positive integer 1 is a counter-example.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Trying to do a non-rigorous direct proof
  1. Rigorous proof (Replies: 9)

  2. Rigorous proof (Replies: 9)

  3. Direct proof unclear (Replies: 15)

Loading...