Filip Saidak isimli bir matematikçinin Öklid'in ispatı üzerine yaptığı modernizasyonu aşağıda görebilirsiniz.
A prime number is an integer greater than 1 that is divisible only by 1 and itself. Mathematicians have been studying primes and their properties for over twenty-three centuries. One of the very first results concerning these numbers was presumably proved by Euclid of Alexan-dria, sometime before 300 B.C. In Book IX of his legendary Elements (see [2]) we find Proposition 20, which states:
Proposition. There are infinitely many prime numbers.
Euclid’s proof (modernized). Assume to the contrary that the set P of all prime numbers is finite, say P = {p1, p2, · · · , pk} for a positive integer k. If Q := (p1 p2 · · · pk)+ 1, then gcd(Q, pi) = 1 for i = 1, 2, · · · k. Therefore Q has to have a prime factor di erent from all existing primes.
That is a contradiction.
Today many proofs of Euclid’s theorem are known. It may come as a surprise that the following almost trivial argument has not been given before:
New proof. Let n be an arbitrary positive integer greater than 1. Since n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, they must be coprime. Hence the number N2 = n(n + 1) must have at least two di erent prime factors. Similarly, since the integers n(n+1) and n(n+1)+1 are consecutive, and therefore coprime, the number N3 = n(n + 1)[n(n + 1) + 1] must have at least three di erent prime factors. This process can be continued indefinitely, so the number of primes must be infinite.
Analysis. The proof just given is conceptually even simpler than the original proof due to Euclid, since it does not use Eudoxus’s method of “reductio ad absurdum,” proof by contradiction. And unlike most other proofs of the theorem, it does not require Proposition 30 of Elements (sometimes called “Euclid’s Lemma”) that states: if p is a prime and p|ab, then either p|a or p|b. Moreover, our proof is constructive, and it gives integers with an arbitrary number of prime factors.
Remarks. In Ribenboim [4, pp.3–11] and Narkiewicz [3, pp.1–10] one finds at least a dozen di erent proofs of the classical theorem of Euclid, and many other variations of the arguments listed in [1], [3], and [4] have been published over the years (in chronological order) by: Goldbach (1730), Euler (1737 and 1762), Kummer (1878), Perott (1881), Stieltjes (1890), Thue (1897), Brocard (1915), P´ olya (1921), Erd¨ os (1938), Bell-man (1947), F¨ urstenberg (1955), Barnes (1976), Washington (1980), and others. Goldbach’s proof (see [4], p.4), which uses pairwise copri-mality of Fermat numbers, seems to be closest in spirit to the argument we have presented.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Personal and virtual conversations with Professors Paulo Ribenboim (Queen’s University) and Eduard Kos-tolansky (Bratislava) are gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank Professor Wladyslaw Narkiewicz (Wroclaw) for bringing to my attention Hermite’s very simple proof concerning n! + 1.
References
[1] M. Aigner and G. M. & Ziegler, Proofs from THE BOOK, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1999
[2] T. L. Heath,The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements, vol. 2, University Press, Cambridge, 1908; 2nd ed. reprinted by Dover, New York, 1956.
[3] W. Narkiewicz, The Development of Prime Number Theory, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 2000
[4] P. Ribenboim, The New Book of Prime Number Records, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1996
