MAT246 Notes on Chapter 1

.
The purpose of these notes is in several directions:

• to motivate the subject matter, and to present some more insight into the concepts, applications, and
evolution of a theory.

• to fill in some missing details from the proofs and arguments presented in the textbook. These details
are important in the process of thinking mathematically, and learning mathematics and writing formal
proofs.

• to have a partial record of the lectures

• to further explore the theory, and to further expand on the textbook exercises. As such the suggested
exercises in these notes complement the textbook exercises and are good source of extra practice
exercise questions.

Algebraic properties of numbers that we use when we make proofs:

For the purpose of our applications the set of real numbers is equipped with two relations:

- equality, =

- total ordering, ≤, and the strict order relation <

Equality is an equivalence relation, that is it satisfies the following three properties, which are so very
obvious that we tend to think of them as completely unnecessary; but please be patient as these ideas appear
in chapter 3 and become important tools in studying Modular Arithmetic,:

- reflexivity: for any real number a, we have a = a

- symmetry: for any two real numbers a and b, we have a = b implies b = a.

- transitivity: for any real numbers a, b and c, if a = b and b = c then a = c.

The total ordering relation satisfies:

- reflexivity: for any real number a, we have a ≤ a,

- anti symmetry: for real numbers a and b, if a ≤ b and b ≤ a then a = b.

- transitivity:

- transitivity: for real numbers a, b, and c, a < b and b < c imply a < c.
further, the following is an special property of real numbers:

- Trichotomy: for any two real numbers a and b satisfy: either a < b or b < a or a = b.

Page 1 of 6
MAT246 Notes on Chapter 1
Note: trichotomy is an important source of proof by cases. Also it follows that if two real numbers a
and b are not equal then either a < b or b < a.

And here is how the ordering relation and the operations addition and multiplications interact: For all real
numbers a, b and c we have

R1) a < b and c > 0 then ac < bc

R2) a < b implies a + c < b + c

Divisibility relation: Chapter 1 introduces and analyzes a very important relation between the two
natural numbers (or two integers.) Theory of numbers is all about the properties of such relations. Indeed
divisibility relation is the first and the most important building blocks of the theory of numbers.

For any two natural numbers m and n we say ‘m divides n’, denoted by m|n, to mean the following
statement:
∃k such that n = km
(Here, k in a natural number or an integer depending on if n and/or m are natural numbers of integers.)
When m|n we sometimes say m is a factor of n, or m is a divisor of n.

Corollary 1 (of definition): for all natural numbers m and n, m|n =⇒ m ≤ n.

This means that any factor of a number must be smaller than or equal to the number.

Proof: given the generic numbers n and m that satisfy m|n; we must prove that m ≤ n. Our assumption
means that ∃k such that n = km. But since k is a natural number, k ≥ 1, and m is also natural number
and as such m > 0, then by property (R1), km ≥ 1 · m = m. So n = km ≥ m, which means m ≤ n.

Two natural questions at this point would be:

- how many divisors does a number n have? The above result says there are at most n divisors of n.
But could we have n divisors for some number n?

- is a given number a divisor of another given number?

Motivational questions: Pleas think about these questions before reading further:

- we all know when is a number divisible by 2, by 5, or by 10. Remember the criteria in each case.

- Try to find an appropriate criterion for deciding if a given number is divisible by 4, by 8, by 16.

- Try to find divisibility criteria for divisibility by 20, 40, 80 etc

- Criterion for divisibility by 3 is given in chapter 3. Suppose you know that. Use this assumption to find
criteria for divisibility by 6, 12, 15.

Page 2 of 6
MAT246 Notes on Chapter 1
- Try to find a factor of the number 853 other than 1 and itself. How far do you go on checking before
you convince yourselves that there is no such factors?

Corollary of corollary 1: If n|m and m|n then m = n.

This property is known as Anti symmetry.

Corollary 2 (of definition): ∀m∀n∀q (m|n and n|q) =⇒ m|q.

Prove this property (transitivity) as an exercise.

We also define the negation of divisibility relation: when a number ‘does not divide another number’...
for given numbers n and m we use the notation m 6 |n to mean ‘m does not divide n’; that is, it is not the
case that ∃k such that n = km.

Prove that for any number n (n − 1) 6 |n, and then use it to prove n 6 |n + 1.

Here is an important result involving the divisibility relation:

Corollary 3: for any given number q > 1, and any number k, ∀k q 6 |(kq + 1).

Proof: Proof by contradiction; assume negation of the statement that we want to prove; that is,
assume “for some q, for some k, q|(kq + 1)." Note that by definition of divisibility, this assumption means
∃m such that (kq + 1) = mq. We do some algebra and reorganize the equality to get (m − k)q = 1. Note
that (m − k) is an integer, and so is q. But how is it possible that two integers multiply to become 1?
The only way this is possible is that both q and m − n are equal to 1 or −1. But the assumption about
q is that it is greater than 1. This is a contradiction, that q > 1 and q = 1 at the same time. Now this
contradiction suggests that somewhere in our chain of reasoning we have made some wrong move, or some
wrong assumption. All our algebra steps were correct, so our only assumption must be wrong. This suggest
that the original statement “for any given number q > 1, ∀k q 6 |(kq + 1)” must have been correct.

Some Exercises:

1. prove that of given (natural numbers or integers) a, b, c and r, if

a|b and a|c, then a|(b + rc)

2. Prove that it is possible for numbers a, b and c to have a|b + c but a does not necessarily divide b or c.

3. Prove that if a|b and a|(b + c) then a|c as well. (did you see that I dropped the use of universal quantifier
here ... sometimes to save time we drop the universals.)

4. Use the previous exercise 1 to prove that if a number ends with digits 0,2,4,6,8 then it is divisible by
2, and it is divisible by 5 if the last digit is 0 or 5 it is divisible by 5. Find and prove similar criteria for
divisibility by 4 and by 8.

Page 3 of 6
MAT246 Notes on Chapter 1
5. Prove that for numbers a, b and n, if ab|n then a|n and b|n. Is the converse true? That is, if a|n and
b|n then ab|n?

6. Prove that if a number is divisible by 2 and by 3 then it is divisible by 6.

A theory is also equipped with certain beliefs: these are called Principles or Axioms. One such important
principle for number theory is the Well ordering principle. This principle suggests that every subset of
natural numbers has a smallest element. The term ‘smallest’ refers to the ordering of the natural numbers
(the same as the ordering of reals.)

Prime numbers: It is an old (2600 year old) idea that the world must be made of ‘atoms’, or ‘indivisi-
bles’, ‘unbreakables’. This theory is important because it can explain the nature of things in a logical manner
and based on a design. Imagine how much more Physics and Chemistry we learned since the invention of
periodic table, which gave us a very good understanding of the structure of the matter and the material
world. The ancient Greeks conjectured that this may also be true of natural numbers: indivisible numbers
could be the building blocks of all other numbers. We can base our theory of numbers on an understanding
of these atomic, indivisible numbers. So we define a prime number to be a natural number that is not
divisible by any other numbers except for 1. This definition is formally written as: a natural number p > 1 is
said to be prime if
∀m (m|p) =⇒ (m = 1 or m = p)
Intuitively, one can think of a prime number as “a number that has no other factors than 1 and itself".

Here is the list of prime numbers below 200: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59,
61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173,
179, 181, 191,193,197, 199. (see the internet for longer lists.)

Negation of definition of Prime number: In mathematics when we learn a formal definition, we

always examine the negation of the definition. Here is negation of formal definition of a prime number: a
given natural number n > 1 is not a prime number whenever

∃m m|n, but m 6= 1 and m 6= n

A number that is not prime is said to be composite. So the above definition can be taken as a formal
definition for a composite number. However we can have a better, more practical definition for a composite
number if we reflect on the meaning of m|n, that is n = mk for some k. Naturally, if 1 < m < n then k
cannot be equal to 1 or n either, and so we must have 1 < k < n as well. This leads to another definition
for composite numbers: we say a given number n is composite if

∃m∃k such that 1 < m < n, and 1 < k < n and n = km

This equivalent definition proves to be a very useful tool in the our proofs.
Next we will prove an important lemma, lemma 1.1.1, which says any number has some prime factor, or a
prime divisor. This really means that prime numbers are building blocks of all other numbers. When you read
our proof below, try to read and compare this proof with the textbook’s proof. Try to see that the textbook
proof is too wordy, and a little less efficient than our proof below. However, it is important to know that the

Page 4 of 6
MAT246 Notes on Chapter 1
textbook proof is more intuitive, and it is closer to the way we normally think. We must value such proofs
because they teach us how we come to realize a proof. Such proofs contain the idea of the proof, as opposed
to a polished version of the proof. The following proof is a polished, formal version of the textbook’s proof.
Read them both side by side and see that they are the same proofs. So, again, the textbook proof is the idea
of the proof, and the following proof is more formal version. Mathematicians think like the textbooks proof
first, and then they present their proofs like our proof. This is what we expect from you in writing answers
to the assignment questions.

However, before we continue with the proof let’s us understand some terminology: “lemma" is the main
part, the main idea, the main trick, the working trick ... A lemma is a mathematical idea that does not
seem very interesting or important. Often a lemma may even looks irrelevant. However a lemma is often the
strongest technical component of some more presentable facts, known as ‘propositions’ or ‘theorems’. But
in essence, the technical component of a theorem or a proposition is a lemma. One can think of lemmas as
atomic components of mathematical reasoning. We will try to demonstrate the role of lemma in the next
two proofs.

Lemma 1.1.1 Every number n > 1 has a prime divisor. This means, there is a prime number p such
that p|n.

Note: every time you see a result, a fact, a lemma, try to feel it yourselves by means of examples. For
example try to verify this lemma about the following numbers: 2, 6, 8, 24, and 1263.

Proof: Proof by cases. Given a generic number, n, we show that n must have a prime divisor. If n is
prime then we are done, as n|n. Else, if n is not prime then it is composite. Then by definition of composite
number there must be a number m1 that divides n while 1 < m1 < n. Now if m1 is a prime then we are done,
because then we let p = m1 . Else, if m1 is not a prime, then it is composite, and by definition of composite
there must exist another number m2 such that 1 < m2 < m1 and m2 |m1 . Again, if m2 is a prime we will
stop because we have found p = m2 that divides n (by transitivity of of the relation divisibility, Corollary 2).
If this process continues and don’t find a prime number then we have constructed a descending sequence of
natural numbers
1 < · · · < m3 < m2 < m1 < n
But according to our first corollary of the definition of divisibility, there could be at most n distinct factors
of n, so this sequence/process must end in a finite number of steps (no more than n steps for sure.) So in a
finite number of steps, say in j steps, we find a mj which is not composite. This means that mj is a prime
number.

Now that we know the importance of prime numbers as atomic numbers, the question is if there are only
few of such numbers or there are infinitely many of them. You agree, if there were only a finite number
of these atomic components then the natural numbers could be a lot simpler to describe, but if there are
infinitely many of them then the nature of the natural numbers would be very different. So this question is
a very legitimate one: are there finitely or infinitely many prime numbers.

The next result is a ‘theorem’; it suggests there are infinitely many prime numbers. A theorem looks more
like statement that describes an interesting fact that public can enjoy talking about it; this is one difference
between a lemma and a theorem. In this proof we will see how lemma 1.1.1 plays a crucial role.

Page 5 of 6
MAT246 Notes on Chapter 1
Theorem 1.1.2: There is no largest prime number.

Proof: Again proof is by contradiction. Assume for the sake of reaching a contradiction that there is a
largest prime number; call it p. And for this proof we must assume that we already know the list of all the
prime numbers less that p, (this is not a difficult task as we shall see in the near future.) Let the list of prime
numbers before, and including p, be 2, 3, 5, 7, . . . p. Define a new number M = (2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × · · · × p) + 1.
According to an earlier result in these notes (that k 6 |(km + 1) for any k and m) none of the prime numbers
before p (including p) can divide this number M , because they divide the product 2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × · · · × p.
But this number M must have a prime divisor (by lemma 1.1.1); we call this prime divisor q, and note that
q cannot be any of the prime numbers smaller than or equal to p because none of them divides M . So
we conclude that q > p. So there is a prime number greater than p. But p was supposed to be largest
prime. This is a contradiction with the assumption. This contradictions establishes that our assumption was
incorrect. Therefore there must be no largest prime number. Q.e.d.

Test your understanding of this proof by trying to do questions 6 and 8, pages 6 and 7.

We must have a method for checking if a given number n is prime or not. One way is to check all the
prime numbers before n to see if they divide n or not. But This search will be a large search when n is large.
Try to answer the following questions:
1. To show a number n is prime why is it sufficient to show it is not divisible by all the primes less than
n
2
? (Hint: the smallest prime is 2.)
√ √
2. For any three numbers k, m, n if n = km then either k ≥ n, or m ≥ n. Why?
3. √
To show a number n is prime why is it sufficient to show it is not divisible by all the primes less than
n? (Hint: use the previous question.)
4. look at the list of prime numbers less than 200; use your method as in the previous question to prove
that they are all prime.

Extra questions for chapter 1: Please do all the exercise questions in chapter 1
1. Prove for any natural number n > 1, the number n(n2 − 1) must be divisible by 3. Also prove that
this number must be divisible by 6 as well.
2. Prove that for any natural number n, the number n(n + 1)(n + 2)(n + 3) must be divisible by 12.
3. For particular ’non-consecutive’ natural numbers m < n prove that n2 − m2 is a composite number.
4. Prove that for any natural number n, 4(n2 + n + 1) − 3n2 is a perfect square.
5. What is wrong with this proof? Prove that the difference between any odd and any even number is an
odd number. Proof: Given and odd number n, and an even number m, we have n = 2k + 1 for some
k, and m = 2k for some k. Then n − m = (2k + 1) − 2k = 1. But 1 is odd, so the proof is completed.
(Can you suggest a correct proof?)
6. Prove that product of any four consecutive numbers is one less than a perfect square.

Page 6 of 6