| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
| | <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. |
| | | | |
| − | 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.
| + | ===Hypothesis=== |
| | | | |
| − | ===Second hypothesis===
| + | :Simple assumption: The hypoteneuse is always larger than either of its lengths. |
| − | | |
| − | Conditional sub-proof of indirect proof: Let's introduce a second hypothesis and see what follows from it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Simple assumption: One or more sets of ''two'' natural numbers, a pair ''n''<sub>1</sub> and ''n''<sub>2</sub>, for example, exist that have a positive integral factor ''f'' apart from one and themselves and common to both of them. | |
| − | | |
| − | :Corollary to assumption: Through the definition of prime numbers such as described in the first "conceptualization" section, if any pair of positive integers ''n''<sub>1</sub> and ''n''<sub>2</sub> have an common integral factor ''f'' apart from one and themselves, they are not prime because they ''both'' have a non-prime type of positive integral factor; in fact it's the same one.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Conditional sub-proof to be proven: ''Assuming no pair of prime numbers can possess the qualities of the pair set with the described factor, no three lines having prime numbers as lengths can form a right triangle.''
| |
| | | | |
| | 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. |
| Line 42: |
Line 36: |
| | ===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. |
| − |
| |
| − | 3. So let's assign ''o''<sub>1</sub> as being equal to ''l''<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup> and ''o''<sub>2</sub> as being equal to ''l''<sub>2</sub><sup>2</sup>, to limit them to showing they are natural numbers like the ''n'''s in the "simple assumption":
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :(''o''<sub>1</sub> / ''h'') + (''o''<sub>2</sub> / ''h'') = ''h''.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Conceptualization (cont'd)===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The conceptualization of the simple assumption can be expressed as
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :If (''n''<sub>1</sub> / ''f'') + (''n''<sub>2</sub> / ''f'') = ''n''<sub>3</sub> then ''n''<sub>1</sub> and ''n''<sub>2</sub> are not prime.
| |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:Plane Geometry]] | | [[Category:Plane Geometry]] |
| | [[Category:Mathematics]] | | [[Category:Mathematics]] |
| | [[Category:Geometric Theorems]] | | [[Category:Geometric Theorems]] |