math.answers.com/basic-math/Do_prime_number_go_on_forever
Preview meta tags from the math.answers.com website.
Linked Hostnames
8- 32 links tomath.answers.com
- 20 links towww.answers.com
- 1 link totwitter.com
- 1 link towww.facebook.com
- 1 link towww.instagram.com
- 1 link towww.pinterest.com
- 1 link towww.tiktok.com
- 1 link towww.youtube.com
Thumbnail

Search Engine Appearance
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
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
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- titleDo prime number go on forever? - Answers
- charsetutf-8
- Content-Typetext/html; charset=utf-8
- viewportminimum-scale=1, initial-scale=1, width=device-width, shrink-to-fit=no
- X-UA-CompatibleIE=edge,chrome=1
Open Graph Meta Tags
7- og:imagehttps://st.answers.com/html_test_assets/Answers_Blue.jpeg
- og:image:width900
- og:image:height900
- og:site_nameAnswers
- og:descriptionYes, 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:cardsummary_large_image
Link Tags
16- alternatehttps://www.answers.com/feed.rss
- apple-touch-icon/icons/180x180.png
- canonicalhttps://math.answers.com/basic-math/Do_prime_number_go_on_forever
- icon/favicon.svg
- icon/icons/16x16.png
Links
58- https://math.answers.com
- https://math.answers.com/basic-math/38_is_what_percent_of_40
- https://math.answers.com/basic-math/Do_prime_number_go_on_forever
- https://math.answers.com/basic-math/How_do_you_change_6.65_into_a_fraction_or_a_mixed_number
- https://math.answers.com/basic-math/How_do_you_round_310.286_to_the_nearest_10