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...