Week 5 – 8

II. PRIMES AND GREATEST COMMON DIVISORS AND

PRIME FACTORIZATION

2.1 Prime Numbers

In this section, we will discuss the distribution of prime numbers among the set of positive
integers, and prove some elementary properties about this distribution. We will also discuss
more powerful results about the distribution of primes. The theorems we will introduce include
some of the most famous results in number theory.
The positive integer 1 has just one positive divisor. Every other positive integer has at least two
positive divisors, because it is divisible by 1 and by itself. Integers with exactly two positive divisors are
of great importance in number theory; they are called primes.
Definition. A prime is an integer greater than 1 that is divisible by no positive integers other than 1 and
itself.
Example 2.1. The integers 2, 3, 5, 13, 101, and 163 are primes.
Definition. An integer greater than 1 that is not prime is called composite.
Example 2.2. The integers 4 = 2 · 2, 8 = 4 · 2, 33 = 3 · 11, 111=3 · 37, and 1001 = 7 · 11 · 13 are
composite.
The primes are the multiplicative building blocks of the integers. Later, we will show that every
positive integer can be written uniquely as the product of primes.
The Infinitude of Primes
We start by showing that there are infinitely many primes, for which the following lemma is
needed.
Lemma 2.1. Every integer greater than 1 has a prime divisor.
Proof. We prove the lemma by contradiction; we assume that there is a positive integer greater than 1
having no prime divisors. Then, since the set of positive integers greater than 1 with no prime divisors is
nonempty, the well-ordering property tells us that there is a least positive integer n greater than 1 with
no prime divisors. Because n has no prime divisors and n divides n, we see that n is not prime. Hence,
we can write n =ab with 1 < a < n and 1 < b < n. Because a < n, a must have a prime divisor. By
Theorem 1.8, any divisor of a is also a divisor of n, son must have a prime divisor, contradicting the fact
that n has no prime divisors. We can conclude that every positive integer greater than 1 has at least one
prime divisor.
Theorem 2.1. There are infinitely many primes.
Proof. Suppose that there are only finitely many primes, p 1, p2, … pn, where n is a positive integer.
Consider the integer Qn, obtained by multiplying these primes together and adding one, that is,
Qn = p1, p2, … pn + 1

not one of the primes listed. If q = p j for some integer j with 1 ≤ j ≤ n. then since Qn - p1, p2, … pn = 1,
By Lemma 2.1. Q has at least one prime divisor, say, q. We obtain a contradiction by showing that q is
because q divides both terms on the left-hand side of this equation, by Theorem 1.9 it follows that q ∣ 1.
This is impossible because no prime divides 1. Consequently, q must be a prime we have not listed. This
contradiction shows that there are infinity many primes
The proof of Theorem 2.1 is nonconstructive because the integer we have constructed in the
proof, Qn, which is one more than the product of the first n primes, may or may not be prime.
Consequently, in the proof we have not found a new prime, but we know that one exists.
Finding Primes
In later chapters, we will be interested in finding and using extremely large primes. Tests
distinguishing between primes and composite integers will be crucial; such tests are called primality
tests. The most basic primality test is trial division, which tells us that the integer n is prime if and only
if it is not divisible by any prime not exceeding √ n. We now prove that this test can be used to determine
whether n is prime.
Theorem 2.2. If n is a composite integer, then n has a prime factor not exceeding √ n.
Proof. Because n is composite, we can write n = ab, where a and b are integers with 1 < a ≤ b < n. We
must have a ≤ √ n, since otherwise b ≥ a > √ n and ab > √ n • √ n = n. Now, by Lemma 2.1, a must have
a prime divisor, which by Theorem 1.8 is also a divisor of n and which is clearly less than or equal to √ n
.

Figure 2.1. Using the sieve of Eratosthenes to find the primes less than 100.
Although the sieve of Eratosthenes produces all primes less than or equal to a fixed integer, to
determine in this manner whether a particular integer n is prime it is necessary to check n for divisibility
by all primes not exceeding √ n. This is quite inefficient; later, we will give better methods for deciding
whether or not an integer is prime.
Definition. The function π (x ), where x is a positive real number, denotes the number of primes not
exceeding x.
Example 2.3. From our illustration of the sieve of Eratosthenes, we see that π ( 10 )=4 and π ( 100 )=25.
Primes in Arithmetic Progressions
Every odd integer is either of the form 4n + 1 or the form 4n + 3. Are there infinitely many
primes in both these forms? The primes 5, 13, 17, 29, 37, 41, ... are of the form 4n + 1, and the primes 3,
7, 11, 19, 23, 31, 43, . . . are of the form 4n + 3. Looking at this evidence hints that there are infinitely
many primes in both these progressions. What about other arithmetic progressions such German as 3n +
l, 7n + 4, 8n + 7, and so on? Does each of these contain infinitely many primes? German Mathematician
G. Lejeune Dirichlet settled this question in 1837, when he used methods from complex analysis to
prove the following theorem.
Theorem 2.3. Diriehlet's Theorem on Primes in Arithmetk Progressions. Suppose that a and b are
relatively prime positive integers. Then the arithmetic progression an + b, n = l, 2, 3, ... , contains
infinitely many primes.
No simple proof of Dirichlet's theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions is known.
(Dirichlet's original proof used complex variables. In the 19 50s, elementary but complicated proofs
were found by Erdos and by Selberg.) However, special cases of Dirichlet's theorem can be proved quite
easily.
The Largest Known Primes
For hundreds if not thousands of years, professional and amateur mathematicians have been
motivated to find a prime larger than any currently known. The person who discovers such a prime
becomes famous, at least for a time, and has his or her name entered into the record books. Because
there are infinitely many prime numbers, there is always a prime larger than the current record. Looking
for new primes is done somewhat systematically; rather than checking randomly, people examine
numbers that have a special form. We will discuss primes of the form 2 P - 1, where p is prime; such
numbers are called Mersenne primes. We will see that there is a special test that makes it possible to
determine whether 2P - 1 is prime without performing trial divisions. The largest known prime number
has been a Mersenne prime for most of the past hundred years. Currently, the world record for the
largest prime known is 243112609 - 1.
Formulas for Primes
Is there a formula that generates only primes? This is another question that has interested
mathematicians for many years. No polynomial in one variable has this property. It is also the case that
no polynomial inn variables, where n is a positive integer, generates only primes (a result that is beyond
the scope of this book). There are several impractical formulas that generate only primes. For example,
Mills has shown that there is a Θ constant such that the function f (n) = [Θ 3n] generates only primes.
Here the value of Θ is known only approximately, with Θ ≈ 1.3064. This formula is impractical for
generating primes not only because the exact value of Θ is not known, but also because to compute Θ
you must know the primes that f (n) generates.
Primality Proofs
If someone presents you with a positive integer n and claims that n is prime, how can you be sure
that n really is prime? We already know that we can determine whether n is prime by performing trial
divisions of n by the primes not exceeding √ n. If n is not divisible by any of these primes, it itself is
prime. Consequently, once we have determined that n is not divisible by any prime not exceeding its
square root, we have produced a proof that n is prime. Such a proof is also known as a certificate of
primality.