The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:12 PM
Christopher Robin Davies Christopher Robin Davies is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quick question about prime factorization

Take any whole number X. Obviously it is either prime or composite. If it is prime, then by definition it has no factors other than itself and 1. If it is composite then it is the product of a unique series of smaller primes. That is the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. It seems to me that at least those prime factors has to be less than or equal to the square root of Y, where Y is the smallest perfect square that is larger than X. Right? In other words if X was 323, then the next perfect square is 324, which is 18 squared, and so at least one of 323's factors has to be smaller than 18. (And that is correct in this case; 323's factors are 17 and 19.)

That seems intuitively obvious to me and I have a vague memory of seeing the proof way back in junior high. But for the life of me I cannot remember what it is. Anybody know?

Last edited by Christopher Robin Davies; 04-26-2012 at 03:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:17 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 10,057
Simple proof by contradiction: assume that all of X's components are larger than the square root of X. Multiply any two of them, and the result is larger than X. This contradicts the assumption, and so must be false.

(This strategy, assume what you want to disprove, is key in the proof that the square root of two is irrational. Simply assume it *is* rational -- x/y -- and show how this leads to a contradiction.)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:43 PM
Christopher Robin Davies Christopher Robin Davies is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Simple proof by contradiction: assume that all of X's components are larger than the square root of X. Multiply any two of them, and the result is larger than X. This contradicts the assumption, and so must be false.

(This strategy, assume what you want to disprove, is key in the proof that the square root of two is irrational. Simply assume it *is* rational -- x/y -- and show how this leads to a contradiction.)
Thank you. I knew it was something simple but my brain was not working.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2012, 04:17 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 17,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Robin Davies View Post
Take any whole number X.
X isn't a whole number; n is!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:36 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
assume what you want to disprove
That's absurd!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:04 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 10,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
That's absurd!
I've been reduced!

(I knew I shouldn't have taken that Trigonometry class from A. Square!)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-27-2012, 06:51 AM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
If d divides n, then d and n/d cannot both be larger than the square root of n, else their product would be > n.

To illustrate, I am currently reading a book of 443 pages and I got curious whether that was prime. Well, obviously not divisible by 2,3, or 5. 7 is out since 450 is not divisible by 7. 11 is out by a simple test. 13 is out because 430 (443 - 13) is not divisible by 13. 17 is out because 460 is not divisible by 17 and for 19, I added 57 and saw that 500 is not divisible by 19. The next prime square is too large (529) so in under a minute I saw that 443 is indeed prime.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.