Mathematics: The Man-Made Universe

"reference.

Preface

TO THE THIRD EDITION

It is now seven years since the second edition of Mathematics: The Man-made Universe appeared. In that time mathematics and the ways it is taught have continued to evolve, influenced both by specialized scholarship and general changes in society. The text for the third edition and the teacher’s manual reflect these developments as well as changes in my own perspective. For example, a major addition to the book in this edition is a new chapter on probability that reflects the increased interest of teachers and students in examining those topics through which mathematics can be applied to problems faced by society or by the individual.

We all find ourselves in a world we never made. Though we become used to the kitchen sink, we do not understand the atoms that compose it. The kitchen sink, like all the objects surrounding us, is a convenient abstraction.

Mathematics, on the other hand, is completely the work of man. Each theorem, each proof, is the product of the human mind. In mathematics all the cards can be put on the table. In this sense, mathematics is concrete, whereas the world is abstract.

This book exploits that concreteness to introduce the general reader to mathematics. The general reader might be either a college or high school student, whatever his special interest might be, or an inquisitive adult. This book grew out of a college course designed to give students in many fields an appreciation of the beauty, extent, and vitality of mathematics. I had searched several years for a suitable text, but those I found were either too advanced or too specialized.

The subjects, chosen from number theory, topology, set theory, geometry, algebra, and analysis, can be presented to the reader having little mathematical background (some chapters use only grammar school arithmetic). Each topic illustrates some significant idea and lends itself easily to experiments and problems.

The reader is advised to take advantage of the concrete nature of mathematics as he reads each theorem and proof; to take nothing on faith; to be suspicious and vigilant; to examine each step of the reasoning ; and to take seriously such suggestions as the reader may provide an example of his own or the reader should check this theorem for some special cases before going on to the proof. It would be wise to read this book with pencil and paper always at hand.

The third edition of Mathematics: The Man-made Universe differs from the earlier editions in many ways.

The preface to the second edition suggested that most classes should begin with the chapter on weighing, which was then the third chapter in the book: for convenience and emphasis, this material now appears as Chapter 1. What was previously the second chapter, The Complete Triangle, has been deleted to make room for the new chapter on probability, which is of more general interest. The Fifteen Puzzle, which had been the first chapter, is now moved to Chapter 14, but it may be taken up at any time. In this edition, Chapters 1 through 4 form the core of the book. The next six chapters, together with the new Chapter 13, are perhaps the ones that will be used most frequently. Chapter 13, Chance, introduces the rudiments of probability theory. It emphasizes common applications and the importance of chance in making decisions. Both the text itself and the accompanying problems show that notions of probability are universal, though perhaps concealed, in ordinary life. Chapter 9, The Representation of Numbers, now includes an extensive introduction to the metric system, which is a natural companion to the analysis of the decimal system found there.

Countless smaller changes have been made throughout. New results, simpler proofs, and new exercises account for some of them. As in the previous edition, many changes have been made to clarify the exposition. Answers to most exercises are now included in the back of the text; others are found in the teacher’s manual.

The exercises are separated into three groups, just as in the previous edition. The first group usually consists of routine exercises that offer the reader a chance to check his understanding of definitions and basic ideas. Exercises in the second group, separated from the first by one circle (0), generally require the reader to apply ideas from the chapter. Two circles precede the third group, in which the exercises offer the greatest challenge, present alternative approaches, or develop ideas tangential to the central theme of the chapter.

It is important to note that this text can be used in several ways, with various types of students, and at several levels of difficulty. Using the map and guide that appear on pages x and xi, the reader or teacher may choose his or her own route through the book. The teacher’s manual suggests in detail how each chapter might be treated for each of three audiences, the liberal arts major, the prospective or practicing teacher, and the mathematics or science major. The recommendations in the teacher’s manual are based on the experience of the author and others who have used this book for many kinds of courses and students.

By the time a text has reached its third edition it is shaped as much by the teachers and students who have used it as by the author. I would like to acknowledge the many suggestions sent me since the appearance of the second edition. In particular, I wish to thank the following for the time and effort they took in communicating their thoughts: C. E. Aull, Virginia Polytechnic Institute; William H. Durfee, Mount Holyoke College; Harold Finkelstein, Emory University; Hilary Hatton, Alaska Methodist University; Calvin T. Long, Washington State University; Donald G. Malm, Oakland University; John L. Marks, San Jose State University; Jack Robertson, Washington State University; L. J. Simonoff, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; A. H. Stone, University of Rochester; and David E. Zitarelli, Temple University.

September 1975

Sherman K. Stein

1

Questions on Weighing

This chapter will raise some important questions about numbers. While they may seem to be mere recreational puzzles that could be understood and investigated by anyone who can do simple arithmetic, in fact they concern a fundamental property in number theory. Not until Chapter 3 will the why behind the answers be considered. The goal of this chapter is to offer an opportunity to experiment with an open-ended problem and to see how a single mathematical idea can appear in a variety of disguises.

The questions, which concern weighing, will be introduced by a few examples. Say that we have a two-pan scale of the type seen in chemistry labs and statues of Justice:

Furthermore, we have an unlimited supply of 5- and 7-ounce measures. Now, supposing that potatoes weigh only whole numbers of ounces, rather than any amount as they actually do, let us ask which potatoes we would be able to weigh with our balance and our two types of measures.

For instance, using only the 5-ounce measures, we can weigh 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, . . . ounces. Or using only the 7-ounce measures, we can weigh 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, . . . ounces. Moreover, we could place one of each type together on a pan:

Thus we can weigh 12 ounces, 12 = 5 + 7. Or we could put one of each type of weight alone on a pan:

In this way we can weigh 2 ounces, since a potato of this weight, together with the 5-ounce measure, balances the 7-ounce measure.

Can we weigh a 3-ounce potato? Yes, by placing two 5-ounce measures on one pan and a 7-ounce measure with the potato:

The balancing records the equation 3 + 7 = 2 ⋅ 5.

Can we weigh a 4-ounce potato? Yes. For instance, by placing two 5-ounce measures with the potato and two 7-ounce measures on the other pan:

The corresponding equation is

4 + 2 ⋅ 5=2 ⋅ 7.

Or we could place three 7-ounce measures with the potato, which then balance five 5-ounce measures. The equation in this case is 4 + 3 ⋅ 7 = 5 ⋅ 5.

Can we weigh a 1-ounce potato? Even this can be done, as the reader may prefer to work out for himself before reading the next sentence. Two 7-ounce measures and the potato on one pan balance three 5-ounce measures on the other pan. The reader may wish to pause and devise still other ways of measuring this 1-ounce potato with 5- and 7-ounce measures.

Once we know that we can weigh a 1-ounce potato, then we know that we can weigh any number of ounces. For instance, we can weigh a 6-ounce potato as follows. First recall that two 7-ounce measures and a 1-ounce potato balance three 5-ounce measures:

Repeating this arrangement of measures six-fold weighs a six-ounce potato. That is, from the relation 1 + 2 ⋅ 7 = 3 ⋅ 5 5 it follows that 6(1 + 2 ⋅ 7) = 6(3 ⋅ 5) or

6 + 12 ⋅ 7 = 18 ⋅ 5.

Of course, this may not be the simplest method for weighing a 6-ounce potato. Indeed, 6 + 3 ⋅ 5 5 = 3 ⋅ 7, so we could have managed by placing three 5-ounce measures with the potato and three 7-ounce measures on the other pan. But the reasoning at least assures us that if we can weigh a 1-ounce potato with a supply of two types of measures, then we can weigh any whole number of ounces with those measures.

So much for the combination 5 and 7. Suppose we turn to another combination, 8 and 21. Even if we have only 8-ounce and 21-ounce measures available, we can measure a 1-ounce potato, since

1 + 3 ⋅ 21 = 8 ⋅ 8.

Eight 8-ounce measures on one pan will balance the potato and three 21-ounce measures on the other pan.

The reader may now suspect that perhaps any pair of measures can weigh a 1-ounce potato. But this is not so. If, for example, we have only 6-ounce and 8-ounce measures, then we could never hope to measure a 1-ounce potato, or, for that matter, any odd number of ounces. (The reader should pause to think about why this is so.)

We are now in a position to ask some basic questions. Suppose we have at our disposal an unlimited supply of measures of two types. How can we decide whether we can weigh a 1-ounce potato with them? For instance, can we use 539-ounce and 1619-ounce measures to weigh a 1-ounce potato? More generally we can ask: What potatoes can we weigh with an unlimited supply of two given types of measures? Keep in mind that all potatoes and measures weigh a whole number of ounces (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .). The whole numbers will usually be referred to as the natural numbers.

The questions really concern numbers, not potatoes. Let us gradually translate the second question into the language of numbers: Denote the weights of the two measures by A and B ounces respectively. In our first combination we had A = 5 and B = 7. The weight of the potato will be denoted by W ounces.

There are various methods of weighing the potato. One consists in putting several A-ounce measures on the pan with the potato and several B-ounce measures on the other pan. How many of each we use will depend on W, A, B, and our arithmetic. Say that we use X of the A-ounce measures and Y of the B-ounce measures:

The corresponding equation is

W + XA = YB,

an equation that asserts merely that the scale in the figure balances. (We omit the multiplication sign between letters.)

For A = 5 and B = 7, let us see what X and Y are for various W. When W = 1, for instance, we have 1 + 4 ⋅ 5 = 3 ⋅ 7. Here X = 4 and Y = 3. Also 1 + 11 ⋅ 5 = 8 ⋅ 7, so that X = 11 and Y = 8 also perform the weighing when W=1.

Another method of weighing consists in placing only B-ounce measures with the potato and only A-ounce measures on the other pan. For A = 5, B = 7, the equation 1 + 2 ⋅ 7 = 3 ⋅ 5 illustrates this. We have W + XB = YA, where W = 1, X = 2, Y = 3.

A third method consists in placing the potato on one pan and the measuring weights on the other pan. For example, if W = 12 we have 12 = 5 + 7; if W = 27 we have 27 = 4 ⋅ 5 + 1 ⋅ 7. This method corresponds to an equation of the type W = XA + YB.

No other practical method exists, for there would be no point in placing measures of equal weight on both pans, since they could be removed without affecting the balance. Thus we need to consider only three types of equations:

W + XA = YB,  W + XB = YA,  W = XA + YB.

In all of these, X and Y are to be natural numbers, possibly including zero. The question about potatoes now becomes one about natural numbers: Let A and B be natural numbers. For which natural numbers W can we find natural numbers X and Y such that at least one of these equations holds:

W + XA = YB,  W + XB = YA,  W = XA + YB?

The potatoes are gone, but we are left with three equations to deal with. We can simplify matters further (reducing the three equations to one) by making use of the negative numbers, —1, —2, —3, —4, —5, . . . , which lie to the left of 0 on the number line. (See Appendix A.) The numbers

. . . , —5, —4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . . .

are called integers. (Note that any natural number is an integer.)

With the aid of the negative numbers, we will reduce the first two equations, W + XA = YB and W + XB = YA, to the third type, W = XA + YB. Consider first, W + XA = YB. This can be rewritten as W = (—X)A + YB, which is of the third type. (For instance, we may rewrite 1 + 4⋅ 5 = 3 ⋅ 7 as 1= (-4)5 + 3 ⋅ 7.) Similarly, W + XB = YA, where X and Y are natural numbers, can be reduced to the third form by writing it as W = YA + (—X)B.

The question about potatoes now reduces to this: Let A and B be natural numbers. Which natural numbers W can be expressed in the form W = MA + NB for certain integers M and N?

Let us see which values of M and N describe our earlier work for the combination A = 5 and B = 7. The following table records some cases we considered, beginning with 5, 10, . . . ; 7, 14, . . . .

Some weighings with 5’s and 7’s

The row for 3, for instance, tells us

Just as a potato may be weighed in more than one way, so M and N are not necessarily unique. For the case W = 6 there were the two weighings

6 + 12⋅ 7 = 18 ⋅ 5  (6 = 18 ⋅ 5 + (—12)7)

and

3 ⋅ 5 + 6 = 3 ⋅ 7 7  (6 = (—3)5 + 3 ⋅ 7).

A little arithmetic produces still more representations of 6; for instance,

6 = 4 ⋅ 5 + (—2)7;  6 = 11 ⋅ 5 + (—7)7;  6= (—10)5 + 8 ⋅ 7.

Our first question, concerning the possibility of weighing a 1-ounce potato, now reads: For which pairs of natural numbers A and B can we find integers M and N such that 1 = MA + NB?

Take the combination A = 24, B = 73. Since 3 ⋅ 24 = 72, we have 1 = (-3)24 + 1 ⋅ 73. Thus for the combination 24 and 73 M and N exist. But what about the combination 24 and 75? Can they measure 1? What about 21 and 34? What about 89 and 233? And, we may wonder: If a pair of measures can’t measure a 1-ounce potato, what is the smallest positive weight they can measure?

There is another way of looking at these questions. Recall the representation 1 = 8 ⋅ 8 + (-3)21. The basis of this is that 8 - 8 differs from 3 ⋅ 21 by just 1. We may have found this representation by listing 1 ⋅ 8 = 8, 2 ⋅ 8 = 16, 3 ⋅ 8 = 24, 4 - 8 = 32, 5 - 8 = 40, 6 ⋅ 8 = 48, 7 ⋅ 8 = 56, 8 ⋅ 8 = 64, . . . and 1 ⋅ 21 = 21, 2 ⋅ 21 = 42, 3 ⋅ 21 = 63, . . . until we found an entry in one list that differed by 1 from an entry in the other list.

The numbers of the form integer times 8 are called the multiples of 8. The multiples of 21, or of any integer, are defined similarly. This illustration shows some of the multiples of 8 and some of the multiples of 21:

Thus the question "Can A and B measure 1? can be phrased in terms of multiples: Are there multiples of A and of B that differ by exactly 1?" Since the multiples of a number are regularly spaced on the number line, the question can also be interpreted geometrically: If we have an unmarked ruler A inches long, and another B inches long, can we measure a distance of one inch?

The reader has probably guessed the answers to these general questions. Chapter 3 will return to this topic. There the equation W = MA + NB will turn out to be the basic tool for establishing fundamental properties of the natural numbers.

Exercises

Is every natural number also an integer? Is 0 a positive integer? Is 0 a negative integer? Is every positive integer also a natural number?

Drawing pictures of the two-pan scale, show three different methods of weighing a 1-ounce potato with 4- and 7-ounce measures.

Drawing pictures of the two-pan scale, show three different methods of weighing a 1-ounce potato with 8- and 13-ounce measures.

What do you think is the smallest weight of a potato that can be measured with (a) 8- and 12-ounce measures, (b) 8- and 11-ounce measures, (c) 9- and 12-ounce measures? Why do you think so?

A 4-ounce potato and five 7-ounce measures balance three 13-ounce measures. Express this in the form (a) W + XA = YB,. where all letters stand for natural numbers, (b) W = MA + NB, where M and N are integers.

Are there integers M and N such that (a) 1 = M ⋅ 7 + N ⋅ 10, (b) 1 = M ⋅ 8 8 + N ⋅ 10, (c) 1= M ⋅ 13 + N ⋅ 22, (d) 1= M ⋅ 6 + N ⋅ 21? If your answer is yes, give values of M and N; if no, explain why.

Show how to weigh a 1-ounce potato with 11-ounce and 18-ounce measures.

Use (a) to find a method of weighing a 3-ounce potato with 11-ounce and 18-ounce measures.

Draw the balanced loading of the two-pan scale that corresponds to each of these equations: (a) 3 + 6 ⋅ 7 = 5 ⋅ 9, (b) 5 = 3 ⋅ 11 + (-4)7, (c) 23 = 2 ⋅ 4 + 3 ⋅ 5.

Can a 1-ounce potato be weighed with 5- and 8-ounce measures in such a way that (a) the potato is with the 5’s, and the 8’s are in the other pan; (b) the potato is with the 8’s, and the 5’s are in the other pan?

Can a collection of 5-ounce measures on one pan ever balance a collection of 8-ounce measures on the other pan?

The products 5 ⋅ 10 and 3 -17 differ by 1. Draw four different balanced loadings of the scales for weighing a 1-ounce potato. that reflect this arithmetic fact. (The measures may be 5, 10, 3, or 17.)

Find integers M and N, if you think they exist, such that

I = M ⋅ 4 + N ⋅ 9,

1 = M ⋅ 9 + N ⋅ 11,

1 = M ⋅ 10 + N ⋅ 15,

1 = M⋅ 23 + N⋅ 25.

Draw on a number line several multiples of 7 and several multiples of 12.

Do the multiples of 7 meet the multiples of 12 anywhere other than at 0?

What is the closest that a multiple of 7 can be to a multiple of 12 without actually coinciding with it?

Consider 5- and 12-ounce measures. Show that it is possible without using more than four 12-ounce measures to weigh (a) a 1-ounce potato, (b) a 2-ounce potato, (c) a 3-ounce potato, (d) a 4-ounce potato, (e) a 5-ounce potato, (f) a 6-ounce potato, (g) a 7-ounce potato. Will this be true for heavier potatoes?

Find a multiple of 9 that differs from a multiple of 11 by 1.

Show them on the number line.

List (a) four multiples of 3, (b) five multiples of 2, (c) six multiples of 7.

Show that 1 can be weighed with 8’s and 11’s.

Give some small values of W that can be weighed with 16’s and 22’s.

Give some small values of W that can be weighed with 24’s and 33’s.

Find four pairs of integers M and N such that (a) 12 = M ⋅ 2 + N 5, (b) 5 = M . 2 + N · 5, (c) 13 = M ⋅ 2 + N ⋅ 5.

What potatoes can be weighed with 4- and 7-ounce measures, if we never use more than three 7-ounce measures?

Consider weighings by 3- and 7-ounce measures. Draw a picture of balanced scales recording the equality 3 ⋅ 7 = 7 ⋅ 3. (a) Show that if a potato can be weighed by placing it on the pan with 3-ounce measures it can also be weighed by placing it on the pan with 7-ounce measures. (b) Is this true more generally than for just 3’s and 7’s?

Find integers M and N such that 1 = M ⋅ 5 + N ⋅ 9 and (a) M is positive, N negative; (b) M is negative, N positive. (c) Draw the corresponding loadings of the scales.

Find integers M and N such that 13 = M·⋅ 4 + N ⋅ 5 and (a) M and N are positive; (b) M is positive, N negative; (c) M is negative, N positive. (d) Draw the corresponding loadings of the scales.

What amounts of postage can you make with 5-cent stamps and 8-cent stamps?

What type of weighing problem would be equivalent to the postage problem raised in (a)?

What requirement does the postage problem impose on M and N if the postage, W, equals M ⋅ 5 + N ⋅ 8?

What amounts of postage can be made with 4-cent and 7-cent stamps?

What amounts of postage can be made with 10-cent and 13-cent stamps?

What amounts of postage can be made if you are allowed to use at most one 1-cent stamp, at most one 2-cent stamp, at most one 4-cent stamp, at most one 8-cent stamp, at most one 16-cent stamp, and so on (each denomination being a product of 2’s)?

Imagine that you have a two-pan scale and a supply of measured weights: one 1-ounce weight, one 3-ounce weight, one 9-ounce weight, one 27-ounce weight, and so on (each measure being a product of 3’s). What weights can you measure?

You have nine 1-cent stamps, nine 10-cent stamps, and nine 100-cent stamps. What postages can you make?

You have four 1-cent stamps, four 5-cent stamps, and four 25-cent stamps. What postages can you make?

You have four pennies, four nickels, four quarters. What amounts can you make from them?

You have two unmarked jugs, one holding 5 quarts, and the other 7 quarts. You walk down to the river and hope to come back with precisely one quart of water. How could you manage to do it?

See E 30. (a) If you had, instead, a 4-quart and a 6-quart jug, could you bring back exactly 1 quart? (b) Could you do it if you had a 7-quart and an 11-quart jug?

Devise more problems like E 30, and develop a conjecture as to when an A-quart and a B-quart jug can measure exactly one quart of water.

See E 30. Can you measure 1 quart if you (a) never pour water from the 7-quart jug into the 5-quart jug, (b) never pour water from the 5-quart jug into the 7-quart jug?

See E 30. What possible amounts of water can you bring back from the river in a single trip with the two jugs mentioned? (Surely not more than 12 quarts, since that is all the jugs hold.)

Our coinage consists of pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters, and half-dollars. Consider a country that has only two types of coins called nickels and luckies, the nickels being worth 5 cents and the luckies being worth 7 cents.

If a customer has only luckies and the clerk has only nickels, can change be made for a one-cent purchase?

If a customer has only nickels and the clerk has only luckies, can change be made for a one-cent purchase?

For what purchases can change be made?

Like E 35 except that the two types are luckies and unluckies, one unlucky being worth 13 cents.

Like E 35 except that the two coins are dimes and unluckies.

Like E 35 except that the two coins have the values 15 cents and 36 cents.

See E 35. Examine the problem of making change in a country that has coins worth 6 cents, 7 cents, and 8 cents.

A banana costs 17 cents and an orange 13 cents. John trades some bananas for Bill’s oranges. What is the smallest number of bananas involved?

John trades some bananas and 1 cent for some of Bill’s oranges. What is the smallest number of bananas involved?

A rabbit on the number line can jump either 9 units to the right or 7 units to the left, wherever he may be. (a) If he starts at0, can he reach 10? (b) If he starts at 1, can he reach 4?

Cuisenaire rods are sticks with lengths ranging from 1 centimeter through 10 centimeters. They represent the natural numbers 1, 2, . . . , 10, and are widely used in teaching arithmetic. Several such rods laid end to end are called a train. The problems in this chapter can also be expressed in terms of these trains. For instance:

Can a train of the 9-rods differ from a train of the 7-rods by exactly one 1-rod?

Can a train of the 7-rods ever be exactly as long as a train of the 9-rods?

What length trains can be built using only the 5-rods and the 8-rods? (This is another version of the postage problem, E 23(a).)

2

The Primes

When there were only 48 states in the Union, the United States flag had 6 rows of 8 stars. Forty-nine states could be represented by 7 rows of 7 stars. Fifty states could be shown in a rectangular array of 2 rows of 25 stars or 5 rows of 10. Fifty-one could be shown as 3 rows of 17; 52 as 2 rows of 26 or as 4 rows of 13. But 53 would be quite troublesome. The only flag of 53 stars in which each row has the same number of stars is a 1-by-53 flag. The number 53 is troublesome because it is not the product of two smaller natural numbers; it is an example of a prime number. So is 47. This chapter is devoted to the prime numbers, which are important both in theory and in practice.

In order to define the primes formally, we shall need the notion of the divisors of a natural number. A natural number A divides a natural number B if there is a natural number Q such that B is the product of Q and A,

B = QA.

If A divides B, we call A a divisor of B and B a multiple of A. Thus 6 has four divisors, 1, 2, 3, and 6; and the multiples of 2 are precisely the even numbers. Any natural number A is a divisor of 0, since 0 = 0 × A. The only natural number with precisely one divisor is the number 1. Any other natural number has at least two divisors, namely itself and 1. The natural numbers with only two divisors are called the primes. The reader may check that the first twenty primes are

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71,

and may easily extend this brief list. A prime can also be described as a natural number (larger than 1) that is not the product of two smaller natural numbers.

As we compute more and more primes, various questions may come to mind. How many primes are there? Calling two primes adjacent if there is no prime between them, we may ask, How far apart can adjacent primes be? (In the above list the largest gap between adjacent primes is 6.) How many pairs of primes differ by 1 (for example, 2 and 3)? How many pairs of primes differ by 2 (for example, 3 and 5, 5 and 7, 11 and 13)? How many pairs of primes differ by 3 (for example, 2 and 5)? How many pairs of primes differ by 4 (for example, 3 and 7, 7 and 11)? Some of these questions can be answered easily, but others are so hard that nobody knows the answers. Let us take them up one by one.

The first question— How many primes are there? — was answered by the Greeks some 2300 years ago. Their solution, which appears as Proposition 20 in Book 9 of Euclid, is based on a theory that they developed, which we will call the Prime-manufacturing Machine. When anyone feeds primes into this machine, it spews out brand new primes — primes that are different from those fed into it. First watch it in operation ; we will explain afterward why it always works.

Let us feed the machine the primes 3, 5 and 11, which are chosen at random. The machine multiplies them all together, getting 165. Then it adds 1 to this result, getting 166. Then it produces all the primes that divide 166; namely, 2 and 83. We see that 2 and 83 are indeed brand new, being different from the three primes fed into the machine.

The reader may check that when the machine is given the primes 2, 3, and 5 it produces just the one new prime, 31. That the primes manufactured by the machine are indeed different from those fed into it is the content of Theorem 1, which depends on the first part of the following lemma.

LEMMA. If a natural number D divides each of two natural numbers A and B, where A is greater than B, then D divides their difference, A — B, and their sum, A + B.

PROOF. By the definition of divides, there are integers Q1 and Q2 such that

A = Q1D  and  B = Q2D.

Thus

A − B = Q1D − Q2D = (Q1 − Q2)D.

Since Q1 − Q2 is an integer and A − B = (Q1 − Q2)D, we conclude that D divides A − B. (A similar argument shows that D divides A + B.)

THEOREM 1. Any prime dividing the natural number that is 1 larger than the product of several primes is different. from any of those primes.

PROOF. Let us, like Adam naming the creatures, give names to the several primes in question so that we can speak of them. If we called them A, B, C, . . . , Z, then we would limit ourselves to feeding the machine at most twenty-six primes. We can avoid this artificial limit by naming the first prime fed into the machine F1 (the letter F standing for Feed), the second prime fed into the machine F2, and so on. When we feed the machine twenty-seven primes we name them

F1, F2, . . . , F27.

Now let us feed the machine N primes,

F1, F2, . . . , FN.

The machine forms their product F1F2 . . . FN and then adds 1 to this product to obtain the natural number

1 + F1F2 . . . FN,

which we will call M. Thus

M = 1 + F1F2 . . . FN.

We must prove that none of the primes F1, F2, . . . , FN divides M. To do this, we first observe that no natural number larger than 1 can divide two natural numbers that differ by 1, for as the lemma shows, when a natural number divides two natural numbers it also divides their difference. Now, each of the F1, F2, . . ., FN clearly divides the product F1F2 . . . FN. Hence none of the F’s can divide the natural number M, which is one larger than F1F2 . . . FN. Thus the machine produces only new primes. Our proof is complete.

The wary reader might say, "Almost complete. After all, how can we be sure that M always has a prime divisor?" The answer to this question is not hard. Think of the smallest divisor of M, other than the number 1. This smallest divisor must be a prime, for any divisor of it is also a divisor of M.

With the help of the machine, we can now provide an answer to How many primes are there? in the next theorem. Of this theorem G. H. Hardy has written, It is a ‘simple’ theorem, both in idea and in execution, but there is no doubt at all about its being a theorem of the highest class. It is as fresh and significant as when it was discovered—two thousand years have not written a wrinkle on it.

THEOREM 2. There is no end to the primes.

PROOF. Let us say that we have a complete list of all the primes up to some point: F1,F2, . . . , FN. We must show that there are primes beyond this list. To do so, feed the whole list F1, F2, . . . , FN into the machine. Any prime that the machine spews out will be different from all the primes F1, F2, . . . ,FN, hence larger than all of them. Thus there are primes as large as we please. In short, there is no end to the primes.

It is interesting to note that, though the definition of prime involves only the notion of multiplication, the proof that there is no end to the primes also involves addition (we added 1). The reason for this is that, though divisor was defined only in terms of multiplication, it happens to behave nicely with respect to addition: a divisor of two natural numbers is also a divisor of their sum and of their difference.

The machine helped answer the first question. Now let us turn to the second. How far apart can adjacent primes be?

THEOREM 3. There are gaps as big as we please between adjacent primes.

PROOF. We illustrate the idea by proving that there are 999 consecutive natural numbers, none of which is prime. To do this, first multiply together all the natural numbers from 1 through 1000. Call their product 1000 factorial (abbreviated 1000!). Then we will show that none of the following 999 consecutive natural numbers is prime:

1000! + 2,  1000! + 3,  1000! + 4,  . . .  , 1000! + 1000.

The first is divisible by 2, since 2 divides both 2 and 1000!. The second is divisible by 3, since 3 divides

1000! = 1000 × 999 × . . . × 3 × 2 × 1

as well as 3. The third is divisible by 4 for similar reasons, and so on; the last is divisible by 1000. Thus we have produced 999 consecutive natural numbers, none of which is prime. The same idea can, of course, be used to produce larger gaps between primes, and our proof is done.

It would seem more natural to have started with 1000! instead of 1000! + 2, but 1000! + 1 might be prime. After all, 3! + 1 is prime. This raises another question: How many natural numbers of the form N! + 1 are prime? No one knows. Nor is it known whether 1000! + 1 is prime.

But let us return to the next question asked at the beginning of the chapter, How many pairs of primes differ by 1? This is an easy one. Clearly, 2 is the only even prime. Any two other primes, being odd, differ by an even number. Thus, 2 and 3 are the only primes differing by 1. Similarly, 2 and 5 are the only primes differing by 3. And going on, we see that 2 and 7 are the only primes differing by 5 and that there are no primes differing by 7.

But what about pairs of primes differing by 2? Clearly the two primes in such a pair must be odd. Such pairs, called twin primes, have been the object of some of the deepest research in number theory for half a century. Yet nobody knows whether they end. A long list of primes suggests that they go on and on, but become rarer as we go farther in the list. This diagram shows some pairs of twin primes:

Primes differing by 4 have also concealed their secrets well, though they have yielded some clues. For instance, they seem to be about as frequent as twin primes.

The study of the gaps between primes is intimately connected with the way in which the primes increase in size farther and farther out in the list of primes. If the gaps tend to grow larger and larger, then the primes increase more quickly; and we have seen that there are gaps as large as we please between primes. But if the small gaps, like 2 or 4, occurred very frequently, then the primes would not increase very quickly. Inspection of our own table of primes shows that the gaps fluctuate quite chaotically.

Yet even within chaos, mathematicians can discover order. We might even say that when things become totally chaotic order reappears. When a penny is flipped with absolute randomness, we find in the midst of that chaos this law: in the long run heads will appear half the time. In the midst of the chaos of primes there is order. In the long run, the gaps between the primes also exhibit a certain orderliness.

To discuss how the primes increase far out in the list, let us introduce a notation for them. Let us call the first prime P1; the second prime, P2; and so on. Thus, for example, P10, the tenth prime, is 29. Since the gap between primes is always at least 1, we can say that the Nth prime, PN, is at least as large as N. But we could be more precise. Since the gaps are at least 2 (except between 2 and 3) once we go beyond the fourth prime, 7, then PN is at least as large as N × 2. As a matter of fact, P10 is 29, which is 10 X 2.9. Now, P10 can be thought of as the sum of ten gaps: from 0 to P1, from P1 to P2, from P2 to P3, . . . , from P9 to P10. Hence we can say that the average of the first ten gaps is 2.9, since P10 = 10 × 2.9; moreover, we see the intimate relation between the average gap up to the Nth prime and the size of the Nth prime. If we know one, we know the other, for PN is simply N times the average of the first N gaps. By the time we reach the 20th prime, 71, the average gap has grown to 3.55, inasmuch as P20 = 71 = 20 × 3.55. Thus, any estimate of the average of the first N gaps gives a way of estimating PN without having to list all the primes from P1 to PN.

In 1791 Gauss noticed by inspection of tables of primes that, though the gaps behave wildly, the average gap grows slowly and is closely approximated by this formula: the average of the first N gaps is approximately

He conjectured but did not prove

THE PRIME NUMBER THEOREM. PN is approximately

That is, the difference between PN and is small in comparison with PN when N is large.

The accuracy of Gauss’s estimate of PN is shown by this table:

But it was not until 1896 that a proof was discovered for Gauss’s conjecture. In that year Hadamard and de la Vallée Poussin, working independently of each other, proved the Prime Number Theorem. Their proofs made use of the complex numbers and the calculus. Finally, in 1948, Selberg and Erdös independently discovered a proof that requires neither the complex numbers nor the calculus. This came as a surprise to the mathematical world, which for over a century and a half had searched in vain for such a proof.

It can be shown that the Prime Number Theorem is equivalent to the assertion that the number of primes less than the natural number X is roughly

As X increases, the numerator grows quickly, whereas the denominator grows very slowly. Thus the quotient becomes very large, which shows again that there is no end to the primes. From the very deep Prime Number Theorem we obtain a result for which we already had a simple proof.

The mysteries of the twin primes lie even deeper: No one even knows whether the twin primes end. However, there is much experimental evidence in favor of

THE TWIN PRIME CONJECTURE. The number of pairs of twin primes less than the natural number X is roughly

This conjecture, made in 1923 by Hardy and Littlewood, would in particular imply that there is no end to the twin primes (for once again, the denominator is the tortoise, and the numerator is the hare). When he conjectured the Prime Number Theorem, Gauss had at least been assured by the Greeks that there is no end to the primes. It might turn out to be easier to prove the Twin Prime Conjecture than to prove that there is no end to the twin primes. But the Twin Prime Conjecture, so tantalizing in its simplicity and so strongly supported by experimental evidence, remains unproved. (For more in this direction see R 4.)

The twin primes illustrate a very dependable recipe for inventing difficult questions about the primes: ask something about the relation between primes and addition. Since the primes are defined using only multiplication, it would seem fortuitous if they behaved decently with respect to addition. After all, as we saw with the Prime-manufacturing Machine, if we add 1 to a natural number we completely change its prime divisors. And the twin primes involve the addition of 2.

We must be especially grateful for any result that manages to relate the primes to addition. Let us cite, without proof, a theorem that was proved by Fermat in 1641: Every prime that is one more than a multiple of 4 can be written as the sum of two squares in precisely one way. (A square is a number of the form N² for some natural number N.) For example, 5 is prime, and is one more than 4, and can be written 1² + 2². (We regard 2² + 1² as the same representation.) Similarly, 13 is prime, and is one more than 12, a multiple of 4, and can be written 2² + 3².

Fermat’s theorem concerns writing primes in terms of other natural numbers. In the opposite direction, there are many questions concerning writing natural numbers in terms of primes. Before we can phrase some of these questions we will need the notion of a power of a natural number. The powers of a natural number N are those natural numbers N, N · N, N · N · N, . . . that are the product of N times itself several times. The first few powers of 2, for example, are 2, 4, 8, 16; the first few powers of 3 are 3, 9, 27, 81. The number N · N is called the square of N; N · N · N is called the cube of N. Rather than write the cumbersome 3 · 3 · 3 · 3, we write simply 3⁴; similarly, 2 · 2 · 2 · 2 · 2 is written simply as 2⁵.

Now we can raise the questions alluded to in the preceding paragraph. Can every odd natural number larger than 3 be written as the sum of a prime and a power of 2? Can every odd natural number larger than 1 be written as the sum of a prime and twice a square? Can every even natural number larger than 2 be written as the sum of two primes?

A few computations suggest that the answer to all three is yes. Examining the first question, for example, we have 5 = 3 + 2, 7 = 5 + 2, 9 = 7 + 2, 11 = 7 + 4, 77 = 13 + 64, and so forth. If the reader extends the list he will observe that sometimes there may be more than one way of expressing a natural number as such a sum; for example, 7 = 5 + 2, and 7 = 3 + 4. In illustrating the second question we have 3 = 3 + 2(0)², 5 = 3 + 2(1)², 7 = 5 + 2(1)², 9 = 7 + 2(1)², 11 = 3 + 2(2)² , 57 = 7 + 2(5)². For the third question we have 4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 3 + 5, 10 = 3 + 7 or 5 + 5, 100 = 89 + 11, and so on.

These three questions, so similar in spirit, have not had the same fate. The first breaks down at 127—the reader is invited to check this; the second breaks down at 5777. Students of Donald G. Malm at Oakland University showed, with the aid of a computer, that 5993 also is not expressible as a prime plus twice a square. Moreover, they showed that 5777 and 5993 are the only two odd integers less than 121,000 that are not so expressible. The third question, in spite of the profound research it has inspired, still remains unanswered. Every even natural number that has been tested can be written as the sum of two primes, but no one has proved that every even natural number can be written that way. The second and third questions were raised by Goldbach, the second in 1752, the third in 1742. Clearly, it is not always possible to judge the depth of a question at first glance, though the brevity of the third has an immediate appeal that the first two lack.

Returning to the natural habitat of the primes, multiplication, we raise another question in the spirit of the last three: Can every natural number larger than 1 and not itself a prime be written as the product of primes? A list of experiments begins as follows: