Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Every integer greater than 2 can be expressed as sum of some prime number greater than 2 and some nonegative integer....$n=p+m$. Since 3=3+0; 4=3+1; 5=3+2 or 5=5+0...etc it is obvious that statement is true.My question is: Can we use Peano's axioms to prove this statement (especially sixth axiom which states "For every natural number $n$, $S(n)$ is a natural number.")?

share|cite|improve this question
I'm a bit confused; are you wanting something like $1+n=1+(3+(n-3))=3+(n-2)=3+((n+1)-3)$? – mathmath8128 Sep 23 '11 at 5:56
Why does it have to be some prime number? Can't we just say that $n = (n - 3) + 3$ ? – The Chaz 2.0 Sep 23 '11 at 5:59
@aengle,no, I wrote random can be any combination of $n,p,m$ that satisfy conditions of statement – pedja Sep 23 '11 at 6:03
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Note: My usual definition of $\mathbb{N}$ includes $0$, as for example in Halmos's Naive Set Theory. This does not matter here. The proposed result asks for an expression of natural numbers greater than $2$ (which means it doesn't matter if you consider $0$ a natural number or not) as a sum of a prime greater than 2 and a nonnegative integer; the proof below shows that every nonnegative integer (in particular, every "natural number if you don't include $0$") is the sum of a prime greater than two and a "natural-number-including-zero" (that is, a "nonnegative integer").

Let $S=\{n\in\mathbb{N}\mid n\leq 2\text{ or there exists a prime }p\gt 2\text{ and a natural }m\text{ such that }n=p+m\}$.

Note that $0$, $1$, and $2$ lies in $S$.

Assume that $k\in S$; we want to prove that $s(k)$, the successor of $k$, lies in $S$.

  • If $k\lt 2$, then $s(k)\leq 2$, so $s(k)\in S$.
  • If $k=2$, then $s(k) = k+1 = 2+1 = 3+0$ is the sum of a prime, $3$, and a natural number, $0$, so $s(k)\in S$.
  • If $k=p+m$ for some prime $p$ and some natural number $m$, then $$s(k) = s(p+m) = p+s(m),$$ and by Peano's postulates, since $m\in\mathbb{N}$ then $s(m)\in\mathbb{N}$. So $s(k)$ is the sum of a prime and a natural number, hence $s(k)\in S$.

By Peano's Fifth Postulate (Induction), $S=\mathbb{N}$. This proves that every natural number greater than $2$ is the sum of a prime and natural number. $\Box$

If you don't consider the natural numbers to include zero, it is very simple to translate the proof above: the definition of $S$ just has to replace the word "natural" with "nonnegative integer": $$S = \{n\in\mathbb{N}\mid n\leq 2\text{ or there exists a prime }p\gt 2\text{ and a nonnegative integer }m\text{ such that }n=p+m\}.$$

Then the first line of the proof can omit the observation that $0\in S$, and where it says "natural number" afterwards, just replace with "nonnegative integer", and the observation that if $m$ is a nonnegative integer, then it is either a natural-greater-than-1, so $s(m)$ is a natural number (under either definition), or else $m=0$ in which case "$s(m)$" denotes $1$, which is a natural number (under either definition).

share|cite|improve this answer
,For case $k=2$ you took for prime to be $2$, but statement refers to the primes strictly greater than 2.I agree with the rest of your proof... – pedja Sep 23 '11 at 14:00
,I am little bit confused because my question refers to the primes greater than $2$ and $m$ as nonnegativ integer and your answer refers to all primes and $m$ as natural number... – pedja Sep 23 '11 at 15:30
@pedja: Simple enough to fix; if $k=2$, then $s(k)=3=3+0$, with $3$ prime and $0$ a natural number. To me, natural numbers include $0$. – Arturo Magidin Sep 23 '11 at 16:01
,Peano's original formulation of the axioms used 1 instead of 0 as the "first" natural number...if it is so then $S(2)$ doesn't belong to $S$ so that's confusing me... – pedja Sep 23 '11 at 16:12
@pedja: In the wikipedia link you have provided the first axiom is "$0$ is a natural number". Either accept this as an axiom, or provide an alternative link with the "correct" formulation of Peano's axioms. – Asaf Karagila Sep 23 '11 at 16:49

HINT $\ $ For nonempty $\rm\ S\subset \mathbb N\ $ show $\rm\ S\:+\:\mathbb N\ =\: \min(S)\: +\: \mathbb N\:.\ $ Your case is $\rm\:S =\:$ odd primes.

share|cite|improve this answer

Yes we can use the Peano's axiom to prove that integer = prime + integer. Think of $0 + a = a$.

share|cite|improve this answer
$0$ is not a prime. – Srivatsan Sep 23 '11 at 6:07
"Without loss of generality, assume that $0$ is prime..." $$$$ :) – The Chaz 2.0 Sep 23 '11 at 6:08
I think The Chaz and Blake's point is that Peano's Arithmetics can prove that if $m \leq n$, then there exists a $k$ such that $m + k = n$. – William Sep 23 '11 at 6:20
@William Now I am confused (and that was not really my point). The question is to write a given number as a prime plus a nonnegative integer, so how is writing $a = 0+a$ useful? – Srivatsan Sep 23 '11 at 6:33
@Blake: All of the basic theorems of number theory, and much more, can be proved using the first-order Peano axioms. The result you are asking about has a quick informal proof, and that proof can be formalized. – André Nicolas Sep 23 '11 at 7:54

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.