Sfrgttk

Why was the term "discrete" used in discrete logarithm?

Should I use a zero-interest credit card for a large one-time purchase?

How to call a function with default parameter through a pointer to function that is the return of another function?

How come Sam didn't become Lord of Horn Hill?

Is it ethical to give a final exam after the professor has quit before teaching the remaining chapters of the course?

How to bypass password on Windows XP account?

How to find out what spells would be useless to a blind NPC spellcaster?

Selecting the same column from Different rows Based on Different Criteria

Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?

In predicate logic, does existential quantification (∃) include universal quantification (∀), i.e. can 'some' imply 'all'?

What to do with chalk when deepwater soloing?

prime numbers and expressing non-prime numbers

Why am I getting the error "non-boolean type specified in a context where a condition is expected" for this request?

Why is "Consequences inflicted." not a sentence?

Output the ŋarâþ crîþ alphabet song without using (m)any letters

What does the word "veer" mean here?

Storing hydrofluoric acid before the invention of plastics

What does the "x" in "x86" represent?

What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?

Seeking colloquialism for “just because”

What does this icon in iOS Stardew Valley mean?

Dating a Former Employee

Why are Kinder Surprise Eggs illegal in the USA?

What does an IRS interview request entail when called in to verify expenses for a sole proprietor small business?

prime numbers and expressing non-prime numbers

2

$begingroup$

My textbook says if $b$ is a non-prime number then it can be expressed as a product of prime numbers. But if $1$ isn't prime how it can be expressed as a product of prime numbers?

number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-numbers

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Mr. Brooks

22211338

asked 4 hours ago

Ahmed M. ElsonbatyAhmed M. Elsonbaty

624

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  An empty product is still a product.
  $endgroup$
  – lulu
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The standard modern day view is that the number 1 is neither prime nor composite.
  $endgroup$
  – Martin Hansen
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

My textbook says if $b$ is a non-prime number then it can be expressed as a product of prime numbers. But if $1$ isn't prime how it can be expressed as a product of prime numbers?

number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-numbers

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Mr. Brooks

22211338

asked 4 hours ago

Ahmed M. ElsonbatyAhmed M. Elsonbaty

624

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  An empty product is still a product.
  $endgroup$
  – lulu
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The standard modern day view is that the number 1 is neither prime nor composite.
  $endgroup$
  – Martin Hansen
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

My textbook says if $b$ is a non-prime number then it can be expressed as a product of prime numbers. But if $1$ isn't prime how it can be expressed as a product of prime numbers?

number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-numbers

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Mr. Brooks

22211338

asked 4 hours ago

Ahmed M. ElsonbatyAhmed M. Elsonbaty

624

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Mr. Brooks

22211338

asked 4 hours ago

Ahmed M. ElsonbatyAhmed M. Elsonbaty

624

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Mr. Brooks

22211338

asked 4 hours ago

Ahmed M. ElsonbatyAhmed M. Elsonbaty

624

edited 2 hours ago

Mr. Brooks

22211338

edited 2 hours ago

Mr. Brooks

22211338

asked 4 hours ago

Ahmed M. ElsonbatyAhmed M. Elsonbaty

624

asked 4 hours ago

Ahmed M. ElsonbatyAhmed M. Elsonbaty

624

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

1

$begingroup$

"In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, also called the unique factorization theorem or the unique-prime-factorization theorem, states that every integer greater than 1 either is a prime number itself or can be represented as the product of prime numbers and that, moreover, this representation is unique, up to (except for) the order of the factors."

Your error lies in stating the fundamental theorem of arithmetic incorrectly.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

Peter ForemanPeter Foreman

7,8651320

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What about non-UFDs? 1 is still not prime in those, so FTA does not apply, and the asker didn't even bring up the FTA.
  $endgroup$
  – Mr. Brooks
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I assumed that their textbook meant the FTA and they accepted my answer, what is the problem?
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Foreman
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  There is no problem at all if you treat this website as a competition for points.
  $endgroup$
  – Mr. Brooks
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

This is mainly just an extended comment on Peter Foreman's answer. The (relatively difficult) uniqueness aspect of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is not needed for the OP's question, just the (easier) existence aspect.

What's missing from the OP's textbook is the qualifier in the correct assertion that every non-prime number greater than $1$ can be expressed as a product of primes. This is the existence aspect of FTA, and it can be proved by strong induction: If $ngt1$ is not a prime, then $n=ab$ for some pair of integers with $1lt a,b$. Both $a$ and $b$ must be less than $n$ (otherwise their product would be more than $n$), so we can assume, by strong induction, that each of them can be written as a product of primes, hence so can their product, which is $n$.

Remark: "Strong" induction means that you don't just assume an assertion is true for $n-1$ and then prove it for $n$, you assume it's true for all positive integers $klt n$. In this case the assertion is "if $kgt1$ and $k$ is non-prime, then $k$ can be written as a product of primes." Note that the base case, $k=1$, is vacuously true, because $1$ is not greater than $1$.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Barry CipraBarry Cipra

60.7k655129

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

What is the sum of no numbers at all? Zero, of course, since it is the additive identity: $x + 0 = 0$, where $x neq 0$, or even if it is.

Now, what is the product of no numbers at all? It can't be zero, since, maintaining the stipulation that $x neq 0$, we have $x times 0 = 0$, and we said $x neq 0$. The multiplicative identity is $1$, since $x times 1 = 1$.

Hence, the product of no primes at all is $1$. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a subtlety that's unnecessary for answering your question.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Mr. BrooksMr. Brooks

22211338

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3190287%2fprime-numbers-and-expressing-non-prime-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

1

$begingroup$

"In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, also called the unique factorization theorem or the unique-prime-factorization theorem, states that every integer greater than 1 either is a prime number itself or can be represented as the product of prime numbers and that, moreover, this representation is unique, up to (except for) the order of the factors."

Your error lies in stating the fundamental theorem of arithmetic incorrectly.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

Peter ForemanPeter Foreman

7,8651320

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What about non-UFDs? 1 is still not prime in those, so FTA does not apply, and the asker didn't even bring up the FTA.
  $endgroup$
  – Mr. Brooks
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I assumed that their textbook meant the FTA and they accepted my answer, what is the problem?
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Foreman
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  There is no problem at all if you treat this website as a competition for points.
  $endgroup$
  – Mr. Brooks
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

"In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, also called the unique factorization theorem or the unique-prime-factorization theorem, states that every integer greater than 1 either is a prime number itself or can be represented as the product of prime numbers and that, moreover, this representation is unique, up to (except for) the order of the factors."

Your error lies in stating the fundamental theorem of arithmetic incorrectly.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

Peter ForemanPeter Foreman

7,8651320

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What about non-UFDs? 1 is still not prime in those, so FTA does not apply, and the asker didn't even bring up the FTA.
  $endgroup$
  – Mr. Brooks
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I assumed that their textbook meant the FTA and they accepted my answer, what is the problem?
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Foreman
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  There is no problem at all if you treat this website as a competition for points.
  $endgroup$
  – Mr. Brooks
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

"In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, also called the unique factorization theorem or the unique-prime-factorization theorem, states that every integer greater than 1 either is a prime number itself or can be represented as the product of prime numbers and that, moreover, this representation is unique, up to (except for) the order of the factors."

Your error lies in stating the fundamental theorem of arithmetic incorrectly.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

Peter ForemanPeter Foreman

7,8651320

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

Peter ForemanPeter Foreman

7,8651320

answered 4 hours ago

Peter ForemanPeter Foreman

7,8651320

answered 4 hours ago

Peter ForemanPeter Foreman

7,8651320

2

$begingroup$

This is mainly just an extended comment on Peter Foreman's answer. The (relatively difficult) uniqueness aspect of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is not needed for the OP's question, just the (easier) existence aspect.

What's missing from the OP's textbook is the qualifier in the correct assertion that every non-prime number greater than $1$ can be expressed as a product of primes. This is the existence aspect of FTA, and it can be proved by strong induction: If $ngt1$ is not a prime, then $n=ab$ for some pair of integers with $1lt a,b$. Both $a$ and $b$ must be less than $n$ (otherwise their product would be more than $n$), so we can assume, by strong induction, that each of them can be written as a product of primes, hence so can their product, which is $n$.

Remark: "Strong" induction means that you don't just assume an assertion is true for $n-1$ and then prove it for $n$, you assume it's true for all positive integers $klt n$. In this case the assertion is "if $kgt1$ and $k$ is non-prime, then $k$ can be written as a product of primes." Note that the base case, $k=1$, is vacuously true, because $1$ is not greater than $1$.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Barry CipraBarry Cipra

60.7k655129

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

This is mainly just an extended comment on Peter Foreman's answer. The (relatively difficult) uniqueness aspect of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is not needed for the OP's question, just the (easier) existence aspect.

What's missing from the OP's textbook is the qualifier in the correct assertion that every non-prime number greater than $1$ can be expressed as a product of primes. This is the existence aspect of FTA, and it can be proved by strong induction: If $ngt1$ is not a prime, then $n=ab$ for some pair of integers with $1lt a,b$. Both $a$ and $b$ must be less than $n$ (otherwise their product would be more than $n$), so we can assume, by strong induction, that each of them can be written as a product of primes, hence so can their product, which is $n$.

Remark: "Strong" induction means that you don't just assume an assertion is true for $n-1$ and then prove it for $n$, you assume it's true for all positive integers $klt n$. In this case the assertion is "if $kgt1$ and $k$ is non-prime, then $k$ can be written as a product of primes." Note that the base case, $k=1$, is vacuously true, because $1$ is not greater than $1$.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Barry CipraBarry Cipra

60.7k655129

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

This is mainly just an extended comment on Peter Foreman's answer. The (relatively difficult) uniqueness aspect of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is not needed for the OP's question, just the (easier) existence aspect.

What's missing from the OP's textbook is the qualifier in the correct assertion that every non-prime number greater than $1$ can be expressed as a product of primes. This is the existence aspect of FTA, and it can be proved by strong induction: If $ngt1$ is not a prime, then $n=ab$ for some pair of integers with $1lt a,b$. Both $a$ and $b$ must be less than $n$ (otherwise their product would be more than $n$), so we can assume, by strong induction, that each of them can be written as a product of primes, hence so can their product, which is $n$.

Remark: "Strong" induction means that you don't just assume an assertion is true for $n-1$ and then prove it for $n$, you assume it's true for all positive integers $klt n$. In this case the assertion is "if $kgt1$ and $k$ is non-prime, then $k$ can be written as a product of primes." Note that the base case, $k=1$, is vacuously true, because $1$ is not greater than $1$.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Barry CipraBarry Cipra

60.7k655129

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Barry CipraBarry Cipra

60.7k655129

answered 2 hours ago

Barry CipraBarry Cipra

60.7k655129

answered 2 hours ago

Barry CipraBarry Cipra

60.7k655129

1

$begingroup$

What is the sum of no numbers at all? Zero, of course, since it is the additive identity: $x + 0 = 0$, where $x neq 0$, or even if it is.

Now, what is the product of no numbers at all? It can't be zero, since, maintaining the stipulation that $x neq 0$, we have $x times 0 = 0$, and we said $x neq 0$. The multiplicative identity is $1$, since $x times 1 = 1$.

Hence, the product of no primes at all is $1$. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a subtlety that's unnecessary for answering your question.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Mr. BrooksMr. Brooks

22211338

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

What is the sum of no numbers at all? Zero, of course, since it is the additive identity: $x + 0 = 0$, where $x neq 0$, or even if it is.

Now, what is the product of no numbers at all? It can't be zero, since, maintaining the stipulation that $x neq 0$, we have $x times 0 = 0$, and we said $x neq 0$. The multiplicative identity is $1$, since $x times 1 = 1$.

Hence, the product of no primes at all is $1$. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a subtlety that's unnecessary for answering your question.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Mr. BrooksMr. Brooks

22211338

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

What is the sum of no numbers at all? Zero, of course, since it is the additive identity: $x + 0 = 0$, where $x neq 0$, or even if it is.

Now, what is the product of no numbers at all? It can't be zero, since, maintaining the stipulation that $x neq 0$, we have $x times 0 = 0$, and we said $x neq 0$. The multiplicative identity is $1$, since $x times 1 = 1$.

Hence, the product of no primes at all is $1$. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a subtlety that's unnecessary for answering your question.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Mr. BrooksMr. Brooks

22211338

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Mr. BrooksMr. Brooks

22211338

answered 2 hours ago

Mr. BrooksMr. Brooks

22211338

answered 2 hours ago

Mr. BrooksMr. Brooks

22211338