by Shayn Tierney, Anja Komlenovic, and Erich Prisner
"If numbers aren't beautiful, I don't know what is." (Paul Erdös)
This concept, as well as the concept of prime numbers, only applies to natural numbers. We say that a natural number A divides a natural number B if
Example: Replace the values in the a and b fields by your values (Note b>a). Press the "division" button to get the remainder r. Press the "Replace" button to replace b by a and a by r. Press these division and replace buttons until you get a remainder of 0.
Euclid's Algorithm (procedure)
for computing the GCD.
The input are two natural numbers a < b.
We divide b by a and get a remainder r.
If this remainder is not equal to 0, we rename
a as b1, rename r as a1,
and divide b1 by a1
to get another remainder r1.
We continue until eventually we must
(since r > r1 > r2 ...)
obtain a remainder
rm=0 (when dividing bm by am).
The last nonempty remainder rm-1 is the GCD of a and b.
There is also a version of this algorithm to find common units of two straight lines. We check how often the shorter one fits into the larger one. Then we proceed with the remaining part (remainder) and the former shorter line, and so on. Different from above, the process doesn't have to terminate and could in principle go on forever (if there is no common unit length contained in both lengths).
A prime number is a natural number that can only be divided by 1 and itself. Also remember that 1 is not a prime number!
The following fact is the foundation of a lot of number theory---that
part of mathematics that investigates natural numbers, prime numbers, and divisibility:
Theorem: Every natural number is uniquely
the product of some prime numbers.
Really large numbers are very difficult and time consuming to factor.
The notion of "Proof" was introduced as demonstration for something true.
Theorem [Euclid]: There are infinitely many prime numbers.
Proof:
The method of proof is called
"Reductuo Ad Absurdum",
you assume the opposite of what you want
to prove correct and show that this assumption logically
leads to something obviously wrong.
Assume there are only finitely many prime numbers
P1, P2, P3...Pn.
Now take the product of all these prime numbers and
increase by 1, you get
A=P1xP2xP2…Pn+1.
Dividing A by P1 leads to remainder 1, the same
for the other n prime numbers, thus none of the prime numbers divides A.
Since A must have a unique factorization into prime numbers,
the only remaining possibility is that A itself prime, which is
a contradiction to the assumption that
P1, P2, P3...Pn are all
the prime numbers (note that A is larger than all these).
That means that the opposite of the assumption
must be true.
go to previous class<<<<< >>>>> go to next class