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











$endgroup$








  • 5




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






  • 1




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
















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











$endgroup$








  • 5




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






  • 1




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














2












2








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











$endgroup$




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




number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









Mr. Brooks

22211338




22211338










asked 6 hours ago









Ahmed M. ElsonbatyAhmed M. Elsonbaty

624




624








  • 5




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






  • 1




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














  • 5




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






  • 1




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








5




5




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




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




1




1




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




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










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









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago










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






  • 1




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



















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









$endgroup$





















    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









    $endgroup$














      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


















      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















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      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









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago










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






      • 1




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
















      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









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago










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






      • 1




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














      1












      1








      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









      $endgroup$



      "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












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered 6 hours ago









      Peter ForemanPeter Foreman

      7,8921320




      7,8921320












      • $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago










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






      • 1




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


















      • $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago










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






      • 1




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
















      $begingroup$
      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
      5 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      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
      5 hours ago












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




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




      1




      1




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




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











      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









      $endgroup$


















        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









        $endgroup$
















          2












          2








          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









          $endgroup$



          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












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          Barry CipraBarry Cipra

          60.7k655129




          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









              $endgroup$


















                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









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  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









                  $endgroup$



                  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












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 5 hours ago









                  Mr. BrooksMr. Brooks

                  22211338




                  22211338






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      GameSpot

                      Image
                      body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} GameSpot 戰地風雲：惡名昭彰2在Gamespot的評論 网站类型 新聞 持有者 CBS 创始人 Pete Deemer Vince Broady Jon Epstein 网站 http://www.gamespot.com/ 注册 Optional (free and paid) 推出时间 1996年5月1日 [1] GameSpot （中国大陆：游戏基地），於1996年5月由Pete Deemer和Vince Broady創立，是一個提供新聞、評論、預告片、下載及其他的相關資訊的電子遊戲網站。GameSpot被一間後來被CNET收購的企業ZDNet所收購。根據Alexa，GameSpot.com是200個網路擁擠最嚴重的網站之一。 除了由GameSpot員工創作的內容，網站還允許用戶寫評論、網誌、之後在網路論壇分享。一些在CNET旗下的GameFAQs分享。 2004年， GameSpot被Spike TV的觀眾選上「電子遊戲賞節目」贏得「最傑出遊戲網站。 [2] 其他的遊戲網站還有IGN、1UP.com、GameSpy是它最大的競爭對手。2008年，根據Compete.com的統計，「gamespot.com」吸引了最少6000萬人的點擊率。 [3] GameSpot的主頁鏈結了到最近新聞、評論、預告、和一些有關遊戲機的入口：Wii、任天堂DS、電腦遊戲、Xbox 360、PSP、PlayStation 2、PlayStation 3。它還有一列「最受歡迎遊戲名單」，還有給用戶快速獲得遊戲資訊的搜尋器。GameSpot 還包括一些小範圍的遊戲機：任天堂64、GameCube、Game Boy Color、Game Boy Advance、Xbox、PlayStation、SEGA Saturn、Dreamcast、Neo Geo Pocket Color、N-Gage、手機遊戲。 目录 1 歷史 1.1 國際歷史 1.2 著名的員工 2 評論和分
                      Read more

                      connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused

                      Image
                      .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 1 1 I created a Ubuntu Vagrant box and ssh'd into it. Now, created a ssh key and trying to ssh to my localhost but I get the following error. vagrant@vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:~$ ssh -vvvv localhost OpenSSH_6.6.1, OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug1: /etc/ssh/ssh_config line 19: Applying options for * debug2: ssh_connect: needpriv 0 debug1: Connecting to localhost [127.0.0.1] port 22. debug1: connect to address 127.0.0.1 port 22: Connection refused ssh: connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused When I check the list of ports opened as follows: vagrant@vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:~$ s
                      Read more

                      Getting a Wifi WPA2 wifi connection

                      Image
                      .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 0 I've been trying to get a simple wifi connection ! bu I have to admit I just can't get it done ! here is what I've tried: root@MYONE:/etc# clear root@MYONE:/etc# vi wpa_supplicant.conf ctrl_interface=/var/run/wpa_supplicant ctrl_interface_group=0 update_config=1 network={ ssid="Mi Engine" psk="7407352688e4" } root@MYONE:/etc# iw wlan0 link Not connected. root@MYONE:/etc# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 74:FE:48:3A:55:AB inet addr:192.168.178.88 Bcast:192.168.178.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::76fe:48ff:fe3a:55ab%4804152/64 Scope:Link UP BRO
                      Read more