Euclid's Theorem
Theorem
For any finite set of prime numbers, there exists a prime number not in that set.
In the words of Euclid:
- Prime numbers are more than any assigned multitude of prime numbers.
(The Elements: Book $\text{IX}$: Proposition $20$)
Corollary 1
There are infinitely many prime numbers.
Corollary 2
There is no largest prime number.
Proof
Let $\mathbb P$ be a finite set of prime numbers.
Consider the number:
- $\ds n_p = \paren {\prod_{p \mathop \in \mathbb P} p} + 1$
Take any $p_j \in \mathbb P$.
We have that:
- $\ds p_j \divides \prod_{p \mathop \in \mathbb P} p$
Hence:
- $\ds \exists q \in \Z: \prod_{p \mathop \in \mathbb P} p = q p_j$
So:
\(\ds n_p\) | \(=\) | \(\ds q p_j + 1\) | Division Theorem | |||||||||||
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) | \(\ds n_p\) | \(\perp\) | \(\ds p_j\) | Definition of Coprime Integers |
So $p_j \nmid n_p$.
There are two possibilities:
- $(1): \quad n_p$ is prime, which is not in $\mathbb P$.
- $(2): \quad n_p$ is composite.
But from Positive Integer Greater than 1 has Prime Divisor, it must be divisible by some prime.
That means it is divisible by a prime which is not in $\mathbb P$.
So, in either case, there exists at least one prime which is not in the original set $\mathbb P$ we created.
$\blacksquare$
Historical Note
This proof is Proposition $20$ of Book $\text{IX}$ of Euclid's The Elements.
Fallacy
There is a fallacy associated with Euclid's Theorem.
It is often seen to be stated that: the number made by multiplying all the primes together and adding $1$ is not divisible by any members of that set.
So it is not divisible by any primes and is therefore itself prime.
That is, sometimes readers think that if $P$ is the product of the first $n$ primes then $P + 1$ is itself prime.
This is not the case.
For example:
- $\left({2 \times 3 \times 5 \times 7 \times 11 \times 13}\right) + 1 = 30\ 031 = 59 \times 509$
both of which are prime, but, take note, not in that list of six primes that were multiplied together to get $30\ 030$ in the first place.
Also see
Source of Name
This entry was named for Euclid.
Sources
- 1926: Sir Thomas L. Heath: Euclid: The Thirteen Books of The Elements: Volume 2 (2nd ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): Book $\text{IX}$. Propositions
- 1971: Allan Clark: Elements of Abstract Algebra ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $1$: Properties of the Natural Numbers: $\S 22 \beta$
- 1982: P.M. Cohn: Algebra Volume 1 (2nd ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $2$: Integers and natural numbers: $\S 2.2$: Divisibility and factorization in $\mathbf Z$: Theorem $5$
- 1986: David Wells: Curious and Interesting Numbers ... (previous) ... (next): $1$
- 1992: George F. Simmons: Calculus Gems ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $\text {A}.4$: Euclid (flourished ca. $300$ B.C.)
- 1992: George F. Simmons: Calculus Gems ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $\text {B}.16$: The Sequence of Primes: Theorem $2$
- 1992: George F. Simmons: Calculus Gems ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $\text {B}.19$: The Series $\sum 1/ p_n$ of the Reciprocals of the Primes
- 1997: David Wells: Curious and Interesting Numbers (2nd ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): $1$
- 1998: David Nelson: The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics (2nd ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): Euclid's proof (of the infinity of primes)
- 2008: David Nelson: The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics (4th ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): Euclid's proof (of the infinity of primes)
- 2008: Ian Stewart: Taming the Infinite ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $7$: Patterns in Numbers: Euclid