Using the Well-Ordering Principle to Prove Primality and Factorization

  • Thread starter Thread starter skeough15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Principle
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around using the well-ordering principle to demonstrate that every number greater than 1 is either a prime number or can be expressed as a product of prime numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of the well-ordering principle and its application to the problem. The original poster expresses uncertainty about how the principle relates to proving primality and factorization. Others suggest considering a set of numbers without prime factorization and analyzing its minimum element.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the logical structure of the proof, discussing the implications of assuming the existence of a minimum element in the set of numbers without prime factorization. There is an emerging understanding of how contradictions arise from the assumptions made about this minimum element.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of a homework assignment, focusing on the application of the well-ordering principle without prior knowledge of its implications in this context.

skeough15
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Use the well-ordering principle to show that every number greater than
1 is either a prime itself, or is the product of prime numbers.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I am sure this question isn't all that hard, I just don't have any idea what the well-ordering principle is. I know it's something to do with a smallest such number in a set... but I don't know how that would help here. If I assume that this is a set of numbers.. then the set S must have a smallest number. I don't know how that helps me in this case though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The well-ordering principle says that "if S is a nonempty subset of N, then S has a minimum".

How does this help in this case?
Assume that there is an element without prime factorization. Let S be the set of such elements, then S is not empty. Thus S has a minimum a. There are 2 possibilities: a is prime or a is not prime. Show that every possibility leads to a contradiction...
 
Oh I see, thank you.
1) So if a is such a minimum, and a is not prime, then a must be composite. If a is composite it can be written as the factors of integers r and s such that r and s are greater than 1. If r and s are greater than 1 than r or s is less than a, but a is the smallest number in our set. Contradiction.
2) If a is prime, then the theorem is true because a is either prime or the product of prime factors.
 
bingo! :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
10K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K