Talk:Composite Number has Prime Factor not Greater Than its Square Root

Should this be moved to Composite Number Has Prime Factor Less Than Or Equal To Its Square Root? --Cynic (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call. The title was so long to begin with that I guess I was a bit lazy. Thanks. -Rob 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"No Greater Than" would be shorter ... --Matt Westwood 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "$$n = p_1 \times p_2 \times...\times p_j$$" - seems a bit woolly to me. If we need at this stage to invoke the prime decomposition of $$n$$ (and I'm not sure it needs to be at this stage of the definition of the theorem), might it be better to link directly to Prime Decomposition?

I also think we need to add the constraint that $$n \ge 2$$ (for a start, because negative integers don't have real square roots). In fact specifying $$n$$ as being composite means we can also get away with saying $$n \ge 0$$ as the smallest positive composite number is $$4$$. Thoughts? --Matt Westwood 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)