Difference between revisions of "Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes"

m
Line 1: Line 1:
We proceed by contradiction.  Suppose there are only [[finite]]ly many [[prime number]]s; let's call them <math>p_1, p_2, p_3, \ldots, p_n</math>.  Let <math>x=p_1\cdot p_2\cdot p_3 \cdots p_n + 1</math>.  When <math>x</math> is divided by any of our primes <math>p_1, p_2, p_3, \ldots, p_n</math> it leaves a [[remainder]] of 1, so none of these primes divide <math>x</math>.  Since every [[positive integer]] has at least one prime factor, <math>x</math> has some prime factor (possibly itself) not in the set <math>\{ p_1,p_2,p_3,\ldots,p_n\}</math>.  Thus <math>\{ p_1,p_2,p_3,\ldots, p_n\}</math> does not contain all prime numbers. Contradiction!  Our original assumption must have been false, so there are in fact infinitely many primes.
+
We proceed by [[proof by contradiction | contradiction]].  Suppose there are only [[finite]]ly many [[prime number]]s; let's call them <math>p_1, p_2, p_3, \ldots, p_n</math>.  Let <math>x=p_1\cdot p_2\cdot p_3 \cdots p_n + 1</math>.  When <math>x</math> is divided by any of our primes <math>p_1, p_2, p_3, \ldots, p_n</math> it leaves a [[remainder]] of 1, so none of these primes divide <math>x</math>.  Since every [[positive integer]] has at least one prime factor, <math>x</math> has some prime factor (possibly itself) not in the set <math>\{ p_1,p_2,p_3,\ldots,p_n\}</math>.  Thus <math>\{ p_1,p_2,p_3,\ldots, p_n\}</math> does not contain all prime numbers. Contradiction!  Our original assumption must have been false, so there are in fact infinitely many primes.
 +
 
 +
[[Euclid | Back to Euclid]]

Revision as of 18:28, 15 January 2007

We proceed by contradiction. Suppose there are only finitely many prime numbers; let's call them $p_1, p_2, p_3, \ldots, p_n$. Let $x=p_1\cdot p_2\cdot p_3 \cdots p_n + 1$. When $x$ is divided by any of our primes $p_1, p_2, p_3, \ldots, p_n$ it leaves a remainder of 1, so none of these primes divide $x$. Since every positive integer has at least one prime factor, $x$ has some prime factor (possibly itself) not in the set $\{ p_1,p_2,p_3,\ldots,p_n\}$. Thus $\{ p_1,p_2,p_3,\ldots, p_n\}$ does not contain all prime numbers. Contradiction! Our original assumption must have been false, so there are in fact infinitely many primes.

Back to Euclid