Patashu
He/Him
Joined: 10/2/2005
Posts: 4014
I watched this one and found it interesting! I also agree that the last step was tricky to follow, but it looked correct on its face. His next video is going to study permutations in depth, so it might end up being a primer for this video.
My Chiptune music, made in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu My twitch. I stream mostly shmups & rhythm games http://twitch.tv/patashu My youtube, again shmups and rhythm games and misc stuff: http://youtube.com/user/patashu
Editor, Skilled player (1938)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3244
p4wn3r wrote:
Maybe it's just me, because I know most of the math concepts, but I also thought his final observation, where he uses a relabeling to prove that the sign of the permutation is the Legendre symbol very difficult to follow. The argument in the blog post, which uses permutation cycles, although more mathy, is more natural in my opinion.
I assume you are referring to the proof of Zolotarev's Lemma. I'll try to summarize what I got from it in the video. Every prime p>2 has a primitive root. There is a proof which uses field theory: Basically, if the max order of elements in (Z/pZ)* (multiplicative group) is some m<p-1, then every element satisfies x^m-1=0 over the field Z/pZ, and so x^m-1 has p-1 factors, contradicting that x^m-1 can only have at most m factors. It is nonconstructive (no algorithm is known in general that gives a primitive root). If g is a primitive root of Z/pZ, then g^2, g^4, ... , g^(p-1) are all squares, and so those are all the quadratic residues and the rest (g^1, g^3, ... , g^(p-2)) are all quadratic nonresidues. The rearranging and relabelling trick is better described as conjugation. So for a permutation x, rearranging and relabelling turns it into zxz-1: left-multiplying by a permutation z corresponds to rearranging, and right-multiplying by z-1 corresponds to relabelling. Because parity of a permutation when multiplying is like even/odd numbers under addition, x and zxz-1 have the same parity. This is why rearranging and relabelling does not change parity. (So you don't have to wait for Mathologer to prove it next time.) So because of the rearranging and relabelling trick, the permutation based on x→bx (mod p) is turned into a permutation based on x→x+c (mod p-1), by taking discrete logarithms, where g is a primitive root and b=g^c. The parity of x→x+c (mod p-1) is even if c is even, and odd if c is odd. Based on the property of primitive roots above, x→bx is even if and only if b is a quadratic residue mod p.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
FractalFusion wrote:
Every prime p>2 has a primitive root. There is a proof which uses field theory: Basically, if the max order of elements in (Z/pZ)* (multiplicative group) is some m<p-1, then every element satisfies x^m-1=0 over the field Z/pZ, and so x^m-1 has p-1 factors, contradicting that x^m-1 can only have at most m factors. It is nonconstructive (no algorithm is known in general that gives a primitive root).
I know this proof, it's been a while since I had a better look at these matters, but I remember it comes from the fact that the polynomial ring over the prime field is an Euclidean domain, right? In that way, you can simply take the gcd of the polynomial with x^p - x, that vanishes for everything. The GCD has to be at most the degree m of p(x), assuming it's less than p. However, this would be impossible if p(x) had more than m roots. Is there a way to prove this without the Euclidean property?
FractalFusion wrote:
The rearranging and relabelling trick is better described as conjugation. So for a permutation x, rearranging and relabelling turns it into zxz-1: left-multiplying by a permutation z corresponds to rearranging, and right-multiplying by z-1 corresponds to relabelling. Because parity of a permutation when multiplying is like even/odd numbers under addition, x and zxz-1 have the same parity. This is why rearranging and relabelling does not change parity. (So you don't have to wait for Mathologer to prove it next time.)
Interesting, I did not see that the rearranging and relabeling is conjugation. What I thought when he presented it was: Every permutation can be broken up into cycles, the sign of the permutation is found by multiplying (-1)^(length+1) for each cycle. Rearranging and relabeling does not change the length of the cycles, so it should not change the sign either. I thought this before looking at the blog post, and since it proves it by cycles directly, I liked it more. The conjugation argument is pretty neat, though. EDIT: It seems to me that it only makes sense to define the ring of polynomials mod p, where it is, in fact, Euclidean. If we define them over a composite number n we get the problem that the group of units mod n is not closed under addition, so in this case, the ring wouldn't even be an integral domain. That's why polynomial mod a composite number can have more roots than their degree, but not modulo a prime number.
Editor, Skilled player (1938)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3244
p4wn3r wrote:
It seems to me that it only makes sense to define the ring of polynomials mod p, where it is, in fact, Euclidean. If we define them over a composite number n we get the problem that the group of units mod n is not closed under addition, so in this case, the ring wouldn't even be an integral domain. That's why polynomial mod a composite number can have more roots than their degree, but not modulo a prime number.
For example, take x^2-1 over Z/8Z. Not only does it not have unique factorization (x^2-1 = (x-1)(x+1) = (x-3)(x+3), for example), you could even factor x^2-1 into two polynomials of higher degree, like x^2-1 = (4x^4+x-1)(4x^4+x+1). Certainly there is no Euclidean property here.
p4wn3r wrote:
What I thought when he presented it was: Every permutation can be broken up into cycles, the sign of the permutation is found by multiplying (-1)^(length+1) for each cycle.
Oh, I didn't even think about it in terms of cycles. Well in that case rearranging and relabelling is just equivalent to relabelling the numbers in the cycle representation, and whether a permutation is even or odd depends only on cycle structure and not on the labels. Note that conjugation also preserves cycle structure.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
For any given N >= 3, is the N-dimensional cube Hamiltonian?
Player (96)
Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia
Warp wrote:
For any given N >= 3, is the N-dimensional cube Hamiltonian?
If you refering to hamiltonian cycle then yes. Easy to prove. Proof: gray code Oh. No. It's wrong. Ok then I don't know. Oh, no, I'm right.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Is it possible to place the vertices of an equilateral triangle on the points of a square grid?
Player (96)
Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia
p4wn3r wrote:
Is it possible to place the vertices of an equilateral triangle on the points of a square grid?
Proof: No. Easy to prove. Area of any triangle with points on the grid is multiple of 0.5. Area of equilateral triangle with side L with points on grid is L*L*sqrt(3)/4 thus it's always irrational, because L*L = x*x+y*y for some x and y. In other words, area is always a whole number multiplied by sqrt(3)/4
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
r57shell wrote:
Warp wrote:
For any given N >= 3, is the N-dimensional cube Hamiltonian?
If you refering to hamiltonian cycle then yes. Easy to prove. Proof: gray code Oh. No. It's wrong. Ok then I don't know. Oh, no, I'm right.
I don't understand that "proof" at all. But I thought of a marvelous proof myself. I'm not mathematically adept at writing a mathematically rigorous proof, so I can only express it colloquially. It would be a proof by induction: Assuming that an (N)-dimensional cube is Hamiltonian, we prove that it follows that an (N+1)-dimensional cube is also Hamiltonian. (Then, since a 2-dimensional "cube", which would be a square, or even a 1-dimensional "cube", which would be a line segment, is trivially Hamiltonian, it follows that all of them are.) In order to do this we notice that we can create an (N+1)-dimensional cube from an (N)-dimensional cube by extruding the latter into the direction of the (N+1) axis by one unit. In other words, we create a copy of the original cube at a distance of a unit in the (N+1) axis, and connect all the corresponding vertices. The simplest example of this would be going from a 2-dimensional "cube" (ie. a square) to a 3-dimensional one: We extrude the square into the 3rd dimension by a unit, ie. we create a copy of the square 1 unit apart in the 3rd dimension, and connect all the corresponding vertices, and we get a 3-dimensional cube. (The same works, in fact, from a 1-dimensional "cube", ie. a line segment, to a 2-dimensional one, ie. a square.) If we have a Hamiltonian path for an (N)-dimensional cube, when we extrude the cube into the (N+1) dimension, we can then continue the Hamiltonian path by going from the last vertex we visited along the new edge created in this manner, and then just do the reverse of the previous path in this new "copy" of the (N)-dimensional cube. Therefore, if we have a Hamiltonian path for an (N)-dimensional cube, we can form a Hamiltonian path for an (N+1)-dimensional cube in this manner. And since there exists a Hamiltonian path for the trivial case of the 1-dimensional "cube", then every N-dimensional cube has one.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
The Gray code proof works pretty much the same way. For each vertex in the N-dimensional cube, we attach an N-bit binary number. In a cube that means: 000 to the point (0,0,0) 001 to the point (0,0,1) 010 to the point (0,1,0) ... and so on. In N-dimensions that works the same way. To go from a vertex to another walking along an edge means to simply flip a single bit. So, the question of the graph being Hamiltonian reduces to whether you can write a circular sequence of all N-bit numbers such that each consecutive pair differs by only one bit. The answer is the Gray code. For the cube: 000 001 011 010 110 111 101 100 If you look carefully, the N-bit Gray code is constructed just like you suggested. You append a 0 to the (N-1)-bit one, and then append 1 to its reverse.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Posting again for an important reason. I realized that, exactly 100 years from now (in my timezone, at least), the great Ramanujan left us :( In his honor, a (very tough) number theoretical problem. Prove that there are infinitely many right triangles with rational side lengths whose area equals 6. Also, press F to pay respects.
Player (96)
Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia
p4wn3r wrote:
Prove that there are infinitely many right triangles with rational side lengths whose area equals 6.
Solved right now. I did use a little bit of programming though, to see if there is any solutions. As a proof that I solved it, I'll just leave following: (k*2)*(k*4)*(k*k*3) Had to use some 'basic advanced knowledge' xD
p4wn3r wrote:
Also, press F to pay respects.
F
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
r57shell wrote:
p4wn3r wrote:
Prove that there are infinitely many right triangles with rational side lengths whose area equals 6.
Solved right now. I did use a little bit of programming though, to see if there is any solutions. As a proof that I solved it, I'll just leave following: (k*2)*(k*4)*(k*k*3) Had to use some 'basic advanced knowledge' xD
Could you share some details about the implementation of your code? Or, at least, the first few cases? The solution does use some "basic advanced" methods, but the problem is a bit well known, so it kinda balances out. I'm asking this mostly because I can't see the hint of a solution from what you wrote, and I wonder if it differs from mine.
Player (96)
Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia
p4wn3r wrote:
Could you share some details about the implementation of your code? Or, at least, the first few cases?
print(i,j,((i-j)*(i+j)*i*j/24)**0.5) 9 3 9.0 15 5 25.0 first one is 3,4,5 triangle second one is 3,4,5 triangle also... oh OH, I have mistake. then, fail. I apologize.
Editor, Skilled player (1938)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3244
p4wn3r wrote:
Prove that there are infinitely many right triangles with rational side lengths whose area equals 6.
The notation (a,b,c) denotes a right triangle with leg lengths a,b and hypotenuse length c (a^2+b^2=c^2). To prove this statement, we'll just prove that there is an infinite family of non-similar right triangles (a,b,c) with the following properties (*): ● Integer side lengths ● gcd(a,b)=1 (so it is the smallest integer triangle of all triangles similar to it), and ● Area is 6 times a square integer; that is, of the form 6p^2. (To get the corresponding rational right triangle with area 6, divide all sides by p.) If (a,b,c) is a right triangle satisfying (*), then we can construct another non-similar right triangle (x,y,z) satisfying (*), as follows:
x=(a^2-b^2)^2,    y=4ab(a^2+b^2),    z=a^4+6a^2b^2+b^4
It is easily checked that x^2+y^2=z^2 and gcd(x,y)=1 (one of a,b is even and the other is odd). Furthermore, the area of the triangle (x,y,z) is:
xy/2   =   (a^2-b^2)^2 * 2ab(a^2+b^2)   =   (2c(a^2-b^2))^2 * (ab/2)
and so if the area of triangle (a,b,c), which is ab/2, is 6 times a square integer, then the area of triangle (x,y,z) is also 6 times a square integer. Finally, the right triangle (3,4,5) satisfies (*). So we can use the above process to construct an infinite family of non-similar right triangles satisfying (*) and thus prove the statement.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Very nice! Here's how I attacked this problem. Warning: I used some very advanced math. This problem is ancient, it's called the Congruent number problem. It goes all the way back to Diophantus, but Fibonacci was the first to study the problem in a way that would give the solution. The idea is to reduce it to elliptic curves. The key insight is to look at half the hypotenuse. If a, b, c denote rational sides of a right triangle of area n, then (c/2)^2+n and (c/2)^2-n are also rational squares. To see this, simply substitute c^2=a^2+b^2. That means we can find a rational triangle of area n whenever three rational squares are in an arithmetic progression of ratio n. To solve this, it's easier to work in projective space, where you have four coordinates (x,y,z,w) that collapse into (x/w,y/w,z/w). It turns out that the solutions to the problem correspond to the intersection of two quadrics in projective space, which reduces to an elliptic curve. Since I am lazy, I simply copied the parametrization from Wikipedia. If we define x=n(a+c)/b, y = 2n^2(a+c)/b^2 Then x and y satisfy y^2 = x^3-n^2x. To go from x and y to a, b, c we use: a=(x^2-n^2)/y, b=2nx/y, c=(x^2+n^2)/y Awesome, so our question reduces to: Does the curve y^2 = x^3 - 36x have infinitely many rational points? The laziest way to check that it does is to look at Cremona's database. How to understand that data? Well, it turns out that elliptic curves have a nice operation that you can use to generate more points in the curve from other ones. This gives the curve the structure of a group. LMFDB gives us the Mordell-Weil structure (the name is because of Mordell's theorem, that says the group is finitely generated), which is Z/2 x Z/2 x Z The Z part shows it's infinite. What if we did not have the database? Well, there are quite a few theorems we can use to narrow down its structure. There are height computations, Nagell-Lutz, reduction mod p, Mazur's theorem. I can elaborate if people want, but what's important to notice is that if we start with a rational point in the curve and keep adding it to itself, if the values are all different for a long period, then we can be sure there are infinitely many of them. LMFDB gives us the point (-3,9), which corresponds to our friend, the (3,4,5) triangle. From the previous discussion, if we keep adding this point to itself we'll generate all triangles of area 6. I implemented this in Python:
Language: Python

from fractions import Fraction as F n = 6 a=F(-n*n,1) maxn = 6 def extract(x,y): p = abs((x*x-n*n)/y) q = abs(2*n*x/y) r = abs((x*x+n*n)/y) print('({p},{q},{r})'.format(p=p,q=q,r=r)) xb=F(-3,1) yb=F(9,1) extract(xb,yb) s = (3*xb*xb+a)/(2*yb) x = s*s-2*xb y = s*(xb-x)-yb extract(x,y) for i in range(maxn): s = (y-yb)/(x-xb) nx = s*s-x-xb y = s*(xb-nx)-yb x = nx extract(x,y)
Looking at the digits, they grow extremely fast:
(3,4,5)
(7/10,120/7,1201/70)
(4653/851,3404/1551,7776485/1319901)
(1437599/168140,2017680/1437599,2094350404801/241717895860)
(3122541453/2129555051,8518220204/1040847151,18428872963986767525/2216541307731009701)
(43690772126393/20528380655970,246340567871640/43690772126393,5405257799550679424342410801/896900801363839325090016210)
(13932152355102290403/884619602260392601,3538478409041570404/4644050785034096801,64777297161660083702224674830494320965/4108218358333926731621213541698169401)
(4156118808548967941769601/1012483946084073924047720,12149807353008887088572640/4156118808548967941769601,21205995309366331267522543206350800799677728019201/4208003571673898812953630313884276610165569359720)
Now, Fractal, I am curious. Did you find the transformation by unwrapping the elliptic curve from the point doubling operation or managed to derive it in a more intuitive way?
Editor, Skilled player (1938)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3244
p4wn3r wrote:
Now, Fractal, I am curious. Did you find the transformation by unwrapping the elliptic curve from the point doubling operation or managed to derive it in a more intuitive way?
I derived it based on two applications of a well-known characterization of primitive Pythagorean triples:
x=s^2-t^2,   y=2st,   z=s^2+t^2
Let u^2=s^2-t^2. Then:
u=a^2-b^2,   t=2ab,   s=a^2+b^2
giving the above formulation of (x,y,z). It so happens that xy/2 has the same squarefree part as ab/2, which is the key. It wasn't entirely unexpected from my end though; I had a feeling something like this would work based on infinite descent arguments I have seen before.
Player (96)
Joined: 12/12/2013
Posts: 376
Location: Russia
This has no solution. I just describe what I did. For the sake of not cheating, I derived parametrization myself. a^2+b^2 = c^2, (we also want gcd(a,b,c) as small as possible) b^2 = c^2 - a^2 c^2 = (c-a)(c+a) Now, we want to prove that (c-a) and (c+a) are perfect squares or multiplied by two (about multiplied by two I discovered much later). To prove it, first we claim that (c-a) and (c+a) can't be divisible by same odd number k. both (c-a) and (c+a) can be divisible by same k if either i and j both divisible by k or k is even. it comes from equation: c+a = 0 (mod k) c-a = 0 (mod k) -> 2c = 0 (mod k) and 2a = 0 (mod k) if k is even, then either both c and a have remainder k/2. or both have remainder 0. for k = 2, they should just have same parity. if k is odd, then 2*c is divisible by k if and only if c divisible by k, similarly for a. Thus, for odd p if both (c-a) and (c+a) divisible by p then c and a also divisible by p, and b^2 divisible by p^2 because it's multiple of (c-a)*(c+a), thus all three sides of triangle divisible by p and we can scale down triangle in p times. But we don't wan't to. We will find scaled down version first, and then scale it up by p if we want to. This means (c-a) = 2^x*n^2, (c+a) = 2^y*m^2, where n and m is odd. OR we can have x and y to be 1 or 0, if we allow n and m to be even. To have (c-a)*(c+a) to be perfect square we should have x+y = even. This means either (c-a) = n^2 and (c+a) = m^2, or (c-a) = 2*n^2 and (c+a) = 2*m^2. where n can be either even or odd. For some reason, I didn't thought about 2n^2 and 2m^2 version, and thought only (c+a) and (c-a) both squares. But right now I see that common representation can be derived from 2n^2 and 2m^2. Probably if (c-a)*(c-b) is form of 2n^2 and 2m^2 then (c-b)*(c+b) is form of n^2 and m^2. so, lets say n^2 = (c-a), and n^2+2nm+m^2 = (c+a) then (c-a)+(c+a) = 2c = 2n^2+2nm+m^2 and c = (2n^2+2nm+m^2) / 2 similarly a = (2nm+m^2)/2 and b^2 = c^2 - a^2 = ((n^2 + (n+m)^2)/2)^2 - ((2nm+m^2)/2)^2 b = n*(n+m) When both n, and m even we have c = (8x^2+8xy+4y^2)/2 and a = (8xy+4y^2)/2 both even. Next, n is even and m is odd -> c and a are fractions because all except m^2 is divisible by 2. Next, if n is odd and m is even -> c = (2n^2+4ny+4y^2)/2 and a = (4ny+4y^2)/2 now c is odd and a is even, so this is fine and in the end, n and m both odd is also fine. then area is a*b/2 = n*(n+m)(2nm+m^2)/4 and both sides multiplied by some rational s = x/y it should be: n*(n+m)(2nm+m^2)*x*x/(y*y*4) = 6 thus n*m*(n+m)(2n+m)*x*x/24 = y*y then (later on) i was trying to find those with x = 1, with hope I'll find them. but first, i didn't like this version, and instead I tried: (c-a) = n^2, (c+a) = m^2 and derived in similar way c = (n^2+m^2)/2, a = (n^2-m^2)/2, b = n*m similarly a*b/2 = (n-m)*(n+m)*n*m/2 a*b*x/y*x/y/2 = n*m*(n-m)*(n+m)*x*x/(2*y*y) = 6 n*m*(n-m)*(n+m)*x*x/24 = y*y and similarly I was looking for x = 1. so y*y should be perfect square. this is where I got my print(i,j,((i-j)*(i+j)*i*j/24)**0.5) and got (3, 1), (6, 3), (15, 5) ... and posted (3k-k)*(3k+k)*3k*k/24 Then, after question about details, when I tried to output actual triangles, it turned out that they are similar. Thus, I've found only one solution. Then, I noticed that if gcd(n,m) is d, then gcd(a,b,c) is at least d, so I did output only if gcd(i,j) and only found these: 3, 1 49, 1 3267, 2209 and no proof about infinite. By the way, I was thinking that (n+m) and (n-m) to be also perfect squares, or 2*square, but it didn't work. On the next day, I did google solutions, and all I've found is geometric out of thin air, and elliptic curve. Actually, even elliptic curve was out of thin air. I know math about elliptic curves, but I wouldn't say it's 'basic advanced knowledge'. For me, even derivation of pythagoras triples already 'basic advanced knowledge'. Later on, I found video, where was normal proof that there is no similar triangle with area of one. But then, suddenly lecturer said: "if you have single solution of fixed area, you can find other solution using following formula:", and this formula is just the method we applied to prove about area one, just in general form. And also noted that it's basically doubling point of elliplic curve. I didn't want to verify it, anyway it was already cheating: googled solution. :)
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
OK, soft question now. Asking here because at another place I post about math there was some heated discussion about this and I want to know what people think. Are -2, -3, -5, -7, ..., prime numbers?
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
p4wn3r wrote:
OK, soft question now. Asking here because at another place I post about math there was some heated discussion about this and I want to know what people think. Are -2, -3, -5, -7, ..., prime numbers?
Every definition I've ever read of prime numbers says a prime must be positive with itself (X) and 1 as the only divisors.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
p4wn3r wrote:
OK, soft question now. Asking here because at another place I post about math there was some heated discussion about this and I want to know what people think. Are -2, -3, -5, -7, ..., prime numbers?
I believe the definition of "prime number" has always included that it's a natural number. The only thing that has changed over the centuries is whether 1 is a prime number or not. (Initially it was considered one, as it fits all the criteria. At some point the consensus was reached to exclude it for practical reasons. This makes 1 a special natural number, as it's not prime nor composite. It has its own, third category.)
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Certainly you guys have a reason to believe a given definition is the best one. There is a reason we exclude 1 from being a prime, for example. In case there's some doubt whether the definition of only positive numbers being prime is unanimous, I can assure you it's not. For example, a very popular algebra textbook states (I changed some symbols because LaTeX is not supported here):
Hungerford wrote:
DEFINITION An integer p is said to be prime if p is not 0,1,-1 and the only divisors of p are 1,-1 and p, -p. EXAMPLE 3, -5, 7, -11, 13, -17 are prime, but 15 is not (because 15 has divisors other than 1,-1 and 15,-15, such as 3 and 5).
The context where this question was raised was that, in a given question the statement said "Let p be a prime integer" and then proceeded to ask for all solutions of a given equation. It turns out that allowing p to be negative gave more solutions, and the examiners did not give complete marks for people who provided the solutions only for positive p.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
p4wn3r wrote:
For example, a very popular algebra textbook states
One textbook does not a consensus make. The vast majority of definitions always talk about positive numbers. Perhaps the most succinct definition of prime number is "a positive integer that has exactly two positive integer factors". Definitions that include negative numbers don't seem to be completely non-existent, though. For an unfathomable reason it appears that the Merriam-Webster dictionary includes negative numbers in the definition as well.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Blackpenredpen recently tackled the question of whether any of the numbers of the form 1010101...01 or in other words 1 + 100 + 1002 + 1003 + 1004 + ... + 100n can be prime, other than 101. It would be interesting to see your approaches at this.
Editor, Skilled player (1938)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3244
p4wn3r wrote:
For example, a very popular algebra textbook states (I changed some symbols because LaTeX is not supported here):
Hungerford wrote:
DEFINITION An integer p is said to be prime if p is not 0,1,-1 and the only divisors of p are 1,-1 and p, -p. EXAMPLE 3, -5, 7, -11, 13, -17 are prime, but 15 is not (because 15 has divisors other than 1,-1 and 15,-15, such as 3 and 5).
I noticed the textbook you cited is in the Graduate Texts in Mathematics series. Outside ring theory, there is no need whatsoever to address negative numbers or zero when talking about prime numbers. It is only when studying ring theory that you need to consider this. Prime numbers can then be reformulated as prime elements of Z, in which case the primes are ±2, ±3, ±5, ±7, ±11, ... I suppose the definition of prime number given in that textbook is written with ring theory in mind, although technically the definition given is for irreducible elements rather than prime elements. Edit: Forgot to mention, but the link to the textbook doesn't work.