SkipCaptcha
126
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: − + − + − + + + − One definition of a prime number ''p'' is that it is a natural number with no positive integral factor ''f'' greater than one and less than itself.+ − ===Second hypothesis===+ − − Line 36:
Line 36: − + − + − − 3. Because of the simple assumption, the square of the prime legs ''l''<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup> and ''l''<sub>2</sub><sup>2</sup> only have a prime factor doubled which must be less than prime factor ''h'' and therefore the leg lengths squared are not divisible by the prime hypoteneuse by the given definition of a prime number. − − 4. Therefore the sum of each of the squared legs divided by the hypoteneuse can never be a whole number like the ''h'' that remains when ''h'' is divided through.
→Reasoning: hid till I can look at it again
<center>[[image:Pythagoras.gif]]</center>
<center>[[image:Pythagoras.gif]]</center>
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
==Corollary: No three lines with prime numbers as lengths can form a right triangle==
==Corollary: No three lines with odd prime numbers as lengths can form a right triangle==
Indirect proof: Let's describe a situation where lines with the lengths of three prime numbers ''do'' form a right triangle and see what follows.
Indirect proof: Let's describe a situation where lines with the lengths of three odd prime numbers ''do'' form a right triangle and see what follows.
===Conceptualization===
===Conceptualization===
Let's call the two prime legs ''l''<sub>1</sub> and ''l''<sub>2</sub> and ''h'' the prime hypoteneuse.
Let's call the two odd prime legs ''l''<sub>1</sub> and ''l''<sub>2</sub> and ''h'' the odd prime hypoteneuse.
One definition of odd prime number ''op'' is that it is an odd natural number with no positive integral factor ''f'' other than one and itself.
===Hypothesis===
:Simple assumption: The hypoteneuse is always larger than either of its lengths.
Simple assumption: The hypoteneuse is always larger than either of its lengths.
That is, it is to be proven that the first proposition (that is, the proposition that is the simple assumption, the ''assumption for a conditional proof'') leads to the second.
That is, it is to be proven that the first proposition (that is, the proposition that is the simple assumption, the ''assumption for a conditional proof'') leads to the second.
===Conceptualization (cont'd)===
===Conceptualization (cont'd)===
The conceptualization of the Pythagorean theorem in the case of the three prime numbers, that is using the ''assumption for an indirect proof'' is therefore: ''l''<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup> + ''l''<sub>2</sub><sup>2</sup> = ''h''<sup>2</sup>.
The conceptualization of the Pythagorean theorem in the case of the three odd prime numbers, that is using the ''assumption for an indirect proof'' is therefore: ''l''<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup> + ''l''<sub>2</sub><sup>2</sup> = ''h''<sup>2</sup>.
====Reasoning====
====Reasoning====
1. Let's divide one of the two prime number "''h''" factors contained in the "''h''<sup>2</sup>" by both sides of the equation:
1. Let's divide one of the two odd prime number "''h''" factors contained in the "''h''<sup>2</sup>" by both sides of the equation:
:(''l''<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup> / ''h'') + (''l''<sub>2</sub><sup>2</sup> / ''h'') = ''h''.
:(''l''<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup> / ''h'') + (''l''<sub>2</sub><sup>2</sup> / ''h'') = ''h''.
2. And since ''l''<sub>1</sub> and ''l''<sub>2</sub> are whole numbers, that which results when they are multiplied by themselves, namely ''l''<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup> and ''l''<sub>2</sub><sup>2</sup>, certainly are as well.
2. And since ''l''<sub>1</sub> and ''l''<sub>2</sub> are whole numbers, that which results when they are multiplied by themselves, namely ''l''<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup> and ''l''<sub>2</sub><sup>2</sup>, certainly are as well.
[[Category:Plane Geometry]]
[[Category:Plane Geometry]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Geometric Theorems]]
[[Category:Geometric Theorems]]