next up previous
Next: Primes of the form Up: Lecture 4: The Sequence Previous: Lecture 4: The Sequence

There are infinitely many primes

Theorem 1.1 (Euclid)   There are infinitely many primes.

Note that this is not obvious. There are completely reasonable rings where it is false, such as

$\displaystyle R = \left\{\frac{a}{b} : a, b\in\mathbb{Z}\text{ and }\gcd(b,30)=1\right\}
$

There are exactly three primes in $ R$, and that's it.

Proof. [Proof of theorem] Suppose not. Let $ p_1=2, p_2=3, \ldots, p_n$ be all of the primes. Let

$\displaystyle N=2\times 3\times 5 \times \cdots \times p_n + 1
$

Then $ N\neq 1$ so, as proved in Lecture 2,

$\displaystyle N = q_1\times q_2 \times \cdots \times q_m$

with each $ q_i$ prime and $ m\geq 1$. If $ q_1\in\{2,3,5,\ldots,p_n\}$, then $ N = q_1 a + 1$, so $ q_1\nmid N$, a contradiction. Thus our assumption that $ \{2,3,5,\ldots,p_n\}$ are all of the primes is false, which proves that there must be infinitely many primes. $ \qedsymbol$

If we were to try a similar proof in $ R$, we run into trouble. We would let $ N=2\cdot 3\cdot 5 + 1 = 31$, which is a unit, hence not a nontrivial product of primes.





Joke (Lenstra). ``There are infinitely many composite numbers. Proof: Multiply together the first $ n$ primes and don't add $ 1$.''


According to

              http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/largest.html
the largest known prime is

$\displaystyle p = 2^{6972593}-1,$

which is a number having over two million1 decimal digits. Euclid's theorem implies that there definitely is a bigger prime number. However, nobody has yet found it and proved that they are right. In fact, determining whether or not a number is prime is an extremely interesting problem. We will discuss this problem more later.


next up previous
Next: Primes of the form Up: Lecture 4: The Sequence Previous: Lecture 4: The Sequence
William A Stein 2001-09-19