Bukti setiap bilangan bulat lebih dari satu punya pembagi prima

Summary

In this video, the speaker demonstrates how to prove that every integer greater than one has a prime divisor using proof by contradiction. The assumption is made that there exists a positive integer greater than one that has no prime divisors. By assuming the existence of the smallest such integer and analyzing its properties, the speaker shows that this leads to a contradiction, concluding that every integer greater than one must have a prime divisor. The proof concludes with the statement that all integers greater than one possess prime divisors, engaging viewers in the process of mathematical reasoning.

Takeaways

• 😀 The video discusses how to prove that every integer greater than one has a prime divisor using the method of contradiction.
• 😀 The assumption made is that there exists a positive integer greater than one that has no prime divisors.
• 😀 A set, denoted as S, is defined, where elements are positive integers greater than one with no prime divisors.
• 😀 It is assumed that the set S contains at least one element, and this element is the smallest integer with no prime divisors.
• 😀 The smallest element in set S is denoted as 'n'. By the assumption, n does not have a prime divisor.
• 😀 Since n does not have a prime divisor, it must divide itself, but n cannot be a prime number.
• 😀 If n is not a prime number, it can be expressed as the product of two integers, a and b, where both a and b are greater than one but less than n.
• 😀 Because n is the smallest integer with no prime divisors, both a and b must also belong to set S, meaning they too do not have prime divisors.
• 😀 From the previous point, it follows that a and b must have prime divisors, contradicting the initial assumption that n has no prime divisors.
• 😀 The contradiction shows that every positive integer greater than one must have at least one prime divisor, proving the statement.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video?

The main topic of the video is proving a mathematical statement about prime numbers using proof by contradiction.

What method does the video use to prove the statement about prime numbers?

The method used is proof by contradiction. The presenter assumes the opposite of what they want to prove and shows that this leads to a contradiction.

What does the script assume at the beginning of the proof?

The script assumes that there exists a positive integer greater than one that does not have a prime divisor.

What is the set 'S' mentioned in the proof?

'S' is the set of positive integers greater than one that do not have a prime divisor. The proof works with this set to eventually derive a contradiction.

Why does the smallest element of set 'S' have a prime divisor?

The smallest element of set 'S' (denoted 'n') is shown to have a prime divisor by the fact that 'n' can be factored into two smaller integers, 'a' and 'b', which must have prime divisors, contradicting the assumption that 'n' has none.

What happens when 'n' is not a prime number?

When 'n' is not a prime number, it can be written as a product of two integers, 'a' and 'b', both of which are smaller than 'n'. This shows that 'n' has prime divisors, contradicting the initial assumption.

How does the contradiction arise in the proof?

The contradiction arises because it is assumed that 'n' has no prime divisors, but the proof shows that 'n' can be factored into smaller numbers that must have prime divisors, which violates the original assumption.

What conclusion is drawn from the proof?

The conclusion of the proof is that every positive integer greater than one must have a prime divisor.

What does the proof imply about the nature of prime numbers?

The proof implies that prime numbers are fundamental divisors of all integers greater than one. Every integer greater than one must either be prime itself or have a prime divisor.

What is the significance of the statement 'n divides n' in the proof?

The statement 'n divides n' is used to highlight that 'n' is a multiple of itself, but since it is assumed to have no prime divisors, this leads to the discovery that 'n' must actually be composite, not prime.