Sieve of Eratosthenes : why can we stop at the $\sqrt n$? The sieve of Eratosthenes is an algorithm to calculate all the primes up to $n$.
It works by iterating $i$ from $1$ to $n$, and at each time strikes out the multiples of $i$.
In many optimizations, I'm seeing that we can actually stop at  $i \leq \sqrt n$ but I don't understand why.
The explanations I found are all based on this hypothesis:

Every composite number has at least one prime factor that's smaller than its square root.

Though I understand this hypothesis, I can't draw a conclusion with it.
Programmatically, I see that it makes sense if we consider an optimization on how we'd strike the multiples of $i$ by starting from $i^2$: we'd end up striking the multiples of $\sqrt n$ starting at $n$, so there's no point in iterating $i$ further.
But mathematically, I don't see how by stopping at $\sqrt n$, we can be sure that all the remainings unvisited integers are primes with the sole hypothesis above.
Thanks a lot for your hints.
EDIT: I see that my question is associated with another question, but if you read the other thread, OP specifically stated they don't want to know why we can stop at $\sqrt n$ but why we are picking $\sqrt n$.
 A: You can argue by contradiction. To make things clear, when I talk about a number's 'prime factors' I'm going to count multiple instances of the same prime distinctly; for instance, $36=2^2\cdot3^2$ has four prime factors: $\{2, 2, 3, 3\}$. (This is sometimes referred to as a multiset of prime factors, but that's an aside...)
Suppose there were a non-prime left after you've sieved up to $\sqrt{n}$. Then it must have at least two prime factors (by definition), and each of those factors must be larger than $\sqrt{n}$ (because that's the guarantee from the sieving you've done). This means that the number itself must be larger than $\sqrt{n}\cdot\sqrt{n}=n$ — but we were only looking at numbers up to $n$.
A: Consider $\sqrt{n} < m \le n$ and suppose further that no integer $j: 1< j \le\sqrt {n}$ divides $m$.
Now suppose $m$ is not prime.  Then $m$ has a factor not equal to $1$ or to $m$.  Call that factor $d$.  Now we just said we can't have $1< d \le \sqrt {n}$ so $ \sqrt{n}< d < m \le n$.
But then $1 < \frac md < \sqrt n$.  (Just algebra manipulation $\sqrt n = \frac {n}{\sqrt n} >\frac nd > \frac md> \frac dd =1$.)
But  $\frac md$ is an integer and a factor of $m$. (We can't have $d$ be a factor so $da = m$ for some integer $a$, if we didn't also have $ad =m$ for integer $d$, so $a =\frac md$ is an integer factor of $m$.)
But that contradicts our claim that we had no factors of $m$ that are less than $\sqrt n$ (other than $1$).
So $m$ must be prime.
