Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
185 bytes added ,  02:32, February 22, 2008
→‎The Prime Numbers: Is this clearer?
Line 8: Line 8:  
The smallest prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13...
 
The smallest prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13...
   −
It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using [[Euclid's second theorem]]. If there were a finite number of primes, you could multiply them all together and add 1.  The resulting number would show the existence of a new prime, since it would not be divisible by any smaller prime (it would always have a remainder of 1).
+
It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem: Imagine there is a finite set consisting of all the primes.  Multiply them all together, add 1, and call this NN would not be divisible by any number in the set--there would always be a remainder of 1.  Because all non-prime numbers can be decomposed into a product of underlying primes, N must be divisible by some prime not in the set (possibly itself), thus contradicting the assumption that the set contained all of the primes.
    
To construct a table of all prime numbers less than ''n'', you would use a method called the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]].  Simply write down an ordered list of all counting numbers greater than 1.  Beginning with 2*2 = 4, cross out every second number:
 
To construct a table of all prime numbers less than ''n'', you would use a method called the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]].  Simply write down an ordered list of all counting numbers greater than 1.  Beginning with 2*2 = 4, cross out every second number:
139

edits

Navigation menu