math.answers.com/basic-math/Do_prime_number_go_on_forever

Preview meta tags from the math.answers.com website.

Linked Hostnames

8

Thumbnail

Search Engine Appearance

Google

https://math.answers.com/basic-math/Do_prime_number_go_on_forever

Do prime number go on forever? - Answers

Yes, in the sense that there can be no "highest prime". Here's a simple (though not rigorous) proof. Suppose there was a highest prime N. Then N x N' (the next highest prime) x N'' (the next highest prime after that) x ... x 5 x 3 x 2 = some number L. L+1 cannot be divided by N; there would be 1 left over. Similarly, it cannot be divided by any of the other, smaller primes, because there would always be a remainder of 1. L + 1 is therefore a higher prime than N, but we started by assuming there could be a highest prime N. That leads to a contradiction; therefore, there is no highest prime. We don't need to know what L + 1 is exactly, or even what the complete list of primes are, to see that it obviously has to be prime. (You can try it for small L. For example, 3 x 2 = 6, 6 + 1 = 7, 7 is prime. 5 x 3 x 2 = 30, 30 + 1 = 31, 31 is prime. And so on. Note that this formula doesn't give us every prime; it skips 5, for example, and all the primes between 7 and 31.)



Bing

Do prime number go on forever? - Answers

https://math.answers.com/basic-math/Do_prime_number_go_on_forever

Yes, in the sense that there can be no "highest prime". Here's a simple (though not rigorous) proof. Suppose there was a highest prime N. Then N x N' (the next highest prime) x N'' (the next highest prime after that) x ... x 5 x 3 x 2 = some number L. L+1 cannot be divided by N; there would be 1 left over. Similarly, it cannot be divided by any of the other, smaller primes, because there would always be a remainder of 1. L + 1 is therefore a higher prime than N, but we started by assuming there could be a highest prime N. That leads to a contradiction; therefore, there is no highest prime. We don't need to know what L + 1 is exactly, or even what the complete list of primes are, to see that it obviously has to be prime. (You can try it for small L. For example, 3 x 2 = 6, 6 + 1 = 7, 7 is prime. 5 x 3 x 2 = 30, 30 + 1 = 31, 31 is prime. And so on. Note that this formula doesn't give us every prime; it skips 5, for example, and all the primes between 7 and 31.)



DuckDuckGo

https://math.answers.com/basic-math/Do_prime_number_go_on_forever

Do prime number go on forever? - Answers

Yes, in the sense that there can be no "highest prime". Here's a simple (though not rigorous) proof. Suppose there was a highest prime N. Then N x N' (the next highest prime) x N'' (the next highest prime after that) x ... x 5 x 3 x 2 = some number L. L+1 cannot be divided by N; there would be 1 left over. Similarly, it cannot be divided by any of the other, smaller primes, because there would always be a remainder of 1. L + 1 is therefore a higher prime than N, but we started by assuming there could be a highest prime N. That leads to a contradiction; therefore, there is no highest prime. We don't need to know what L + 1 is exactly, or even what the complete list of primes are, to see that it obviously has to be prime. (You can try it for small L. For example, 3 x 2 = 6, 6 + 1 = 7, 7 is prime. 5 x 3 x 2 = 30, 30 + 1 = 31, 31 is prime. And so on. Note that this formula doesn't give us every prime; it skips 5, for example, and all the primes between 7 and 31.)

  • General Meta Tags

    22
    • title
      Do prime number go on forever? - Answers
    • charset
      utf-8
    • Content-Type
      text/html; charset=utf-8
    • viewport
      minimum-scale=1, initial-scale=1, width=device-width, shrink-to-fit=no
    • X-UA-Compatible
      IE=edge,chrome=1
  • Open Graph Meta Tags

    7
    • og:image
      https://st.answers.com/html_test_assets/Answers_Blue.jpeg
    • og:image:width
      900
    • og:image:height
      900
    • og:site_name
      Answers
    • og:description
      Yes, in the sense that there can be no "highest prime". Here's a simple (though not rigorous) proof. Suppose there was a highest prime N. Then N x N' (the next highest prime) x N'' (the next highest prime after that) x ... x 5 x 3 x 2 = some number L. L+1 cannot be divided by N; there would be 1 left over. Similarly, it cannot be divided by any of the other, smaller primes, because there would always be a remainder of 1. L + 1 is therefore a higher prime than N, but we started by assuming there could be a highest prime N. That leads to a contradiction; therefore, there is no highest prime. We don't need to know what L + 1 is exactly, or even what the complete list of primes are, to see that it obviously has to be prime. (You can try it for small L. For example, 3 x 2 = 6, 6 + 1 = 7, 7 is prime. 5 x 3 x 2 = 30, 30 + 1 = 31, 31 is prime. And so on. Note that this formula doesn't give us every prime; it skips 5, for example, and all the primes between 7 and 31.)
  • Twitter Meta Tags

    1
    • twitter:card
      summary_large_image
  • Link Tags

    16
    • alternate
      https://www.answers.com/feed.rss
    • apple-touch-icon
      /icons/180x180.png
    • canonical
      https://math.answers.com/basic-math/Do_prime_number_go_on_forever
    • icon
      /favicon.svg
    • icon
      /icons/16x16.png

Links

58