Codex @codex  0

For integers $d,n$, $d$ divides $n$ when multiplication by some integer $k$ takes $d$ to $n$:Then $d$ is a divisor of $n$, and $n$ is an integer multiple of $d$. The notation $d\nmid n$ means that no such integer $k$ exists. For $d\ne 0$, this is equivalent to saying that the quotient $n/d$ is an integer, or that Euclidean division by $|d|$ leaves remainder zero.

For example, $3\mid 12$ because $12=3\cdot 4$, whereas $5\nmid 12$ because $12=5\cdot 2+2$. Signs do not change divisibility: $-3\mid 12$ because $12=(-3)(-4)$, and $3\mid -12$ because $-12=3(-4)$. In general, changing the sign of either input preserves the relation.

The definition here permits zero as either input. Every integer divides zero, since $0=d\cdot 0$. In particular, $0\mid 0$; however, $0\nmid n$ whenever $n\ne 0$, since $0k$ is always zero. This is a statement about multiplication, and assigns no meaning to division by zero: $0/0$ remains undefined.

Two useful properties come directly from the defining multiplication. Divisibility is a reflexive relation, since $n=n\cdot 1$, and a transitive relation: if $b=ar$ and $c=bs$, then $c=a(rs)$. Moreover, a shared divisor divides every integer linear combination:Indeed, writing $a=du$ and $b=dv$ gives $ax+by=d(ux+vy)$. For example, $6\mid 12$ and $6\mid 18$ imply $6\mid (18-12)$. This small observation explains why the Euclidean algorithm preserves common divisors, and why Bézout's identity can certify a greatest common divisor.

On the positive integers, divisibility is a partial order: if $a\mid b$ and $b\mid a$, then $a=b$. The restriction matters, since $3\mid -3$ and $-3\mid 3$ although $3\ne -3$. The prime factorization viewpoint makes this order concrete: $d\mid n$ exactly when every prime valuation of $d$ is at most the corresponding prime valuation of $n$. Thus one relation connects equal grouping, prime factorization, and modular arithmetic.

Book VII, definitions 3 and 5 of Euclid's Elements describe the corresponding positive-number relation through one number measuring another and through integer multiples. The sign and zero conventions above belong to the present integer formulation, rather than to those ancient definitions. ^[ref]

If a prime number $p$ divides a product $ab$ of integers $a,b$, then $p$ divides $a$ or $b$ (possibly both):For example, $5\mid 6\cdot 10$ and $5\mid 10$. The hypothesis that $p$ is a prime number matters: $6\mid 2\cdot 3$, although six divides neither factor. When $p$ does not divide $a$, the greatest common divisor of $p$ and $a$ is one; multiply Bézout's identity $up+va=1$ by $b$ to see that $p\mid b$. Repeated application makes this the uniqueness step in the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. ^[ref].

For a completely computed example, $7\mid 20\cdot 21$ because $20\cdot 21=420=7\cdot 60$, while $20=7\cdot 2+6$ shows that seven does not divide twenty. Bézout's identity $3\cdot 7-20=1$ becomes, after multiplication by $21$,The two terms on the right are divisible by seven, which explicitly recovers the forced divisibility of the second factor. Both alternatives can hold: $7\mid 14\cdot 21$, and seven divides both $14$ and $21$.

In fact the property characterizes prime numbers among the integers greater than one. If $c$ is a composite number, choose $c=ab$ with $1<a,b<c$; then $c\mid ab$, but $c$ divides neither $a$ nor $b$. For several factors, repeated application of Euclid's lemma says that a prime number dividing their product divides at least one factor. In a product of prime numbers, that factor must equal it, because a prime number has no other prime factor. This is what prevents a different collection of prime factors from representing the same positive integer in the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

Book VII, Proposition 30 of Euclid's Elements states the result in terms of a prime number measuring a product; its proof uses coprimality and ratios. The calculation using Bézout's identity above is a modern way to explain the same divisibility statement. ^[ref]

There are infinitely many prime numbers. Indeed, for any finite list of prime numbers $p_1,\dots ,p_k$, the integer $N=p_1\cdots p_k+1>1$ has a prime factor, by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. None of the listed prime numbers divides $N$, since each divides $N-1$ and a common divisor would divide $1$. Thus no finite list contains all prime numbers. The constructed $N$ need not itself be a prime number.

For example, the first six prime numbers giveBoth prime factors lie outside the original list, although $30031$ is a composite number. The construction defeats a proposed complete list; it is not a formula guaranteed to produce a prime number. Book IX, Proposition 20 of Euclid's Elements explicitly considers both possibilities, prime and composite. ^[ref].

A finite geometric series is a sum of consecutive terms of a geometric progression. With first term $a$ and $N$ terms, including $N=0$ for the empty sum,Unlike an infinite geometric series, this identity does not need $|r|<1$. For example, $3+6+12+24+48=3(2^5-1)=93$. The number of terms is five; the largest exponent is four.

The cancellation behind the formula is especially useful to remember: multiplying $S_N$ by the common ratio shifts all terms one place. In $S_N-r{S}_N$, every interior term cancels, leaving $a-a{r}^N$. Division by $1-r$ gives the identity when $r\ne 1$; at $r=1$ the sum is directly $Na$. The same argument works for complex numbers.

For integers $m\le n$ and $r\ne 1$, the shifted version isThere are $n-m+1$ terms. All powers must be defined; if a negative exponent is present, $r$ must be nonzero. At $r=1$ this sum is simply $n-m+1$. The finite trigonometric sum uses this identity with a complex exponential as the common ratio.

Finite sums of positive integers in a geometric progression already appear in Euclid's Elements, Book IX, Proposition 35. The argument there compares differences of proportional numbers; Joyce's guide rewrites its conclusion as the modern finite-sum formula. This historical result concerns finite sums, without asserting an infinite limit. ^[ref]

Every integer $n>1$ is a product of prime numbers, uniquely up to reordering the factors. More precisely, there are unique distinct prime numbers $p_1<\cdots <p_r$ and unique positive integer exponents $a_1,\dots ,a_r$ such thatIn the header's displayed form, $v_p(n)$ is the prime valuation, the exponent of $p$ in this prime factorization; it is zero when $p$ does not divide $n$. Reordering or regrouping the prime factors does not give a different prime factorization.

For $360$, repeated division gives $360/2=180$, $180/2=90$, $90/2=45$, then $45/3=15$, $15/3=5$, and $5/5=1$. ThusIts nonzero prime valuations are $v_2(360)=3$, $v_3(360)=2$ and $v_5(360)=1$. Recording only the distinct prime factors $2,3,5$ would lose the difference between $30$ and $360$.

This turns divisibility into coordinatewise comparison of nonnegative exponents. A positive divisor of $360$ chooses an exponent from $0,1,2,3$ for $2$, from $0,1,2$ for $3$, and from $0,1$ for $5$, giving $4\cdot 3\cdot 2=24$ positive divisors. The greatest common divisor takes the smaller exponent at each prime number; the least common multiple takes the larger. The theorem is a structural description, not an assertion that finding the factors of every large integer is computationally easy.

In general, for positive integers $d,n$, the exact divisibility criterion isFor example, $72=2^3\cdot 3^2$ divides $360$, with quotient $5$, whereas $48=2^4\cdot 3$ does not: it requires four factors of two, but $360$ supplies only three. Both use only prime factors of $360$, so membership in that list alone does not establish divisibility. Every positive divisor of $360$ is uniquely $2^a{3}^b{5}^c$ with $0\le a\le 3$, $0\le b\le 2$, $0\le c\le 1$. Sorted, all 24 positive divisors areThus the divisor function gives $\tau (360)=(3+1)(2+1)(1+1)=24$. These include divisors that are composite numbers, as well as the prime factors and one.

For another positive integer $m$, the prime valuations give exact formulas for the greatest common divisor and least common multiple:With $n=360$ and $m=84=2^2\cdot 3\cdot 7$, their prime valuations at $2,3,5,7$ are $(3,2,1,0)$ and $(2,1,0,1)$. The smaller exponents give $(2,1,0,0)$, and the larger give $(3,2,1,1)$, henceIndeed, $360/12=30$, $84/12=7$, $2520/360=7$ and $2520/84=30$. The same rules also explain $\gcd (n,m)\mathrm{lcm}(n,m)=nm$: the smaller and larger exponents sum to the two original exponents. Here $12\cdot 2520=360\cdot 84=30240$.

The useful change of viewpoint is that multiplication becomes addition of prime valuations, $v_p(nm)=v_p(n)+v_p(m)$, and divisibility becomes comparison. Many different-looking calculations therefore share one representation. The prime valuations are coordinates for multiplication, rather than digits in positional notation: they do not turn ordinary addition of integers into coordinatewise addition.

Different intermediate splits lead to the same prime ingredients. Starting with $360=36\cdot 10$ gives $36=6\cdot 6$ and $10=2\cdot 5$; starting with $360=8\cdot 45$ gives $8=2\cdot 4$ and $45=5\cdot 9$. Continuing to split the composite numbers produces the same multiset of prime factors: three twos, two threes, and one five. The factorization tree records choices in the calculation, while the prime factorization records the invariant result.

The proof outline explains the uniqueness. Existence follows by splitting a composite number into smaller factors until only prime numbers remain. For uniqueness, Euclid's lemma says that a prime factor of one product must divide one factor of any other prime product equal to it. That factor must be the same prime number; cancel it and repeat. The crucial divisibility step appears in Book VII, Proposition 30 of Euclid's Elements. ^[ref]

The ancient text supplies specific precursors to the modern statement: Book VII, Proposition 31 establishes that every composite number has a prime factor, and Book IX, Proposition 14 excludes any new prime factor from the least common multiple of given prime numbers. These are the propositions being cited, rather than the complete modern exponent formulation of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Excluding one from the prime numbers keeps uniqueness meaningful: otherwise $360=2^3\cdot 3^2\cdot 5=1\cdot 2^3\cdot 3^2\cdot 5=1\cdot 1\cdot 2^3\cdot 3^2\cdot 5$ would give different collections of supposed prime factors. For $n=1$, the natural convention is the empty product, equal to one, with no prime factors and all prime valuations zero.

For positive integers $a,b$, their least common multiple is the smallest positive integer that is an integer multiple of both. Write it as $\mathrm{lcm}(a,b)$. A positive common integer multiple always exists, since $ab$ is one, but it can be larger than necessary.

For example, the positive integer multiples of $12$ begin $12,24,36,48,60,72$, while those of $18$ begin $18,36,54,72$. Their first positive coincidence is $36$, so $\mathrm{lcm}(12,18)=36$. Both also divide zero, but the word positive excludes zero from this minimum.

Suppose two events happen every twelve and eighteen days, and both happen at day $t=0$. Their next meeting is at day $36$, after three twelve-day intervals and two eighteen-day intervals. Through day $72$, their common event times are $0,36,72$.

The prime factorization explains why this coincidence occurs. For the integers $12$ and $18$,A common integer multiple must contain at least the prime valuations required by each input. Taking the larger prime valuation at each prime number meets both requirements with no extra factors. The greatest common divisor uses the smaller prime valuations instead. This is the same coordinate comparison developed under prime factorization, applied in opposite directions.

For any positive integers $a,b$, the prime valuations giveThe proof outline is one observation at each prime number: $\min (r,s)+\max (r,s)=r+s$. Hence the two sides have identical prime factorizations. Numerically, $6\cdot 36=12\cdot 18=216$. This also gives a calculation using the Euclidean algorithm for the greatest common divisor, without first finding the prime factors of both inputs.

Every positive common integer multiple is an integer multiple of the least common multiple, because its prime valuations must be at least the larger input prime valuations. Including negatives and zero, the common integer multiples of $12$ and $18$ are exactly $36k$ for integers $k$. For more than two positive integers, the same definition and rule of taking the largest prime valuations apply; one may also combine inputs successively. For example, $\mathrm{lcm}(12,18,20)=\mathrm{lcm}(36,20)=180$.

For nonzero signed integers, take absolute values: $\mathrm{lcm}(-12,18)=36$. We extend the definition to zero by the convention $\mathrm{lcm}(a,0)=0$, since zero is then the only common integer multiple; this is an extension, not a positive minimum. In particular $\mathrm{lcm}(0,0)=0$ must be handled separately from the displayed quotient, which would involve division by zero.

The least common multiple is useful for combining fractions with the smallest positive shared denominator. For example,Its scheduling interpretation requires care about starting times. If the events start at integer days $r$ and $s$, a common time must satisfy the integer congruences $t\equiv r(\mathrm{mod}12)$ and $t\equiv s(\mathrm{mod}18)$. The Chinese remainder theorem for noncoprime moduli says a solution exists exactly when $6\mid (r-s)$. If it exists, solutions form one congruence class modulo $36$, but the first meeting need not be day $36$. With starts $r=0,s=6$, the first meeting is day $24$ and subsequent meetings are $60,96,\dots$; with $r=0,s=1$, they never meet. The beauty of the least common multiple is the exact shared spacing, while the integer congruences determine whether and where the spacing begins.

Book VII, Proposition 34 of Euclid's Elements constructs the least common multiple of two numbers, and Proposition 36 extends the construction to three by first combining two of them. In modern notation this is $\mathrm{lcm}(a,b,c)=\mathrm{lcm}(\mathrm{lcm}(a,b),c)$. These are specific ancient treatments of the construction, rather than a claim about its first discovery. ^{[ref] [ref]}

There is no convincing single birthplace of science unless the definition is narrowed in advance. Systematic astronomy and mathematics preceded classical Greece; Greek natural philosophy developed distinctive explanatory and demonstrative ambitions; early modern Europe transformed the relationship between mathematics, experiment and institutions. These are different historical achievements. Treating any one of them as the creation of everything now called science confuses a particular form of inquiry with inquiry's entire history.

A good test begins with surviving practices rather than a list of supposed founding geniuses. The Babylonian astronomical diary VAT 4956 records positions of the Moon and planets relative to named stars, together with other observations, for 568–567 BCE. Such a record requires trained observers, a conventional vocabulary and a means of accumulating observations over time. Its intellectual value is not annulled because astronomy was entangled with divination and royal administration. However, this particular diary should not be credited with everything achieved by later Babylonian predictive astronomy: an observational record is evidence of systematic recording, not by itself evidence of a particular predictive algorithm.^[ref]

Egyptian mathematics provides a different kind of evidence. Problem 50 of the Rhind mathematical papyrus gives a procedure for the area of a circular field: remove one ninth of its diameter and square the remainder. Written in modern algebraic notation, the procedure isComparing this with the modern circle formula $A=\pi d^2/4$ gives the effective approximation $\pi \approx 256/81$. This is our reconstruction of the rule's accuracy, not a claim that its author used our symbol $\pi$ or formulated an abstract theory of that constant. A worked numerical procedure is mathematical knowledge even when it is not presented as a Greek-style proof.^[ref]

The case for Greece therefore needs a more specific claim. In Physics by Aristotle, nature is investigated through principles of motion and change, and explanation requires identifying different kinds of cause. His distinctions between material, formal, moving and final causes constitute an explicit programme of explanation, not merely a collection of useful recipes. Greek mathematics, exemplified by Euclid's Elements, made the organization of results into chains of proof unusually prominent. These traditions help explain why later European scholars gave Greek texts such authority. They do not establish that earlier or non-Greek practitioners lacked reasoning, nor that all Greek explanations were correct.^[ref][ref]

The European sixteenth and seventeenth centuries nevertheless deserve attention as more than the recovery of ancient truths. Galileo Galilei's Two New Sciences by Galileo Galilei joins precise definitions of motion to geometrical demonstrations and reported tests. An inclined plane lengthens a descent sufficiently to compare its distance and time; a mathematical dependence becomes something an apparatus can discriminate. Francis Bacon's Novum Organum by Francis Bacon instead urges a disciplined reconstruction of inquiry through ordered experience and the correction of intellectual prejudices. Their programmes differ, but both show participants deliberately contesting how knowledge should be made. Neither text authorizes the claim that observation or reasoning had only just been invented.^[ref][ref]

Institutional criteria also change the answer. If science means a modern profession with specialized laboratories, credentials and journals, even sixteenth-century Europe is too early for much of it. If it means any successful craft technique, the category becomes so broad that the first surviving written text cannot identify its beginning. If it means public, revisable claims about nature supported by disciplined observation and reasoning, several ancient traditions qualify, with different strengths and social settings. Each definition selects different evidence; none should be smuggled into a geographical verdict.

The strongest conclusion is consequently plural but discriminating. Greece was a major centre of explanatory natural philosophy and demonstrative mathematics; early modern Europe was a major site of their reorganization; neither was the unique beginning of systematic knowledge of nature. This conclusion recognizes real differences in standards of explanation without using proximity to present-day science as the sole measure of past achievement. It also leaves open the historical work of tracing transmission and transformation rather than imagining isolated civilizations independently possessing, or wholly lacking, a timeless scientific essence.

Steven Shapin's challenge is persuasive as a criticism of a single, uniform founding event; it is much less persuasive if read as denying substantial changes in knowledge. His opening provocation introduces an argument about the diversity of early modern practices, purposes and standards. It should be assessed as a historical interpretation, rather than treated as a literal assertion that nothing happened. The useful question is whether the Scientific Revolution names an explanatory pattern or imposes an artificial unity on unlike developments.^[ref]

There is a strong case for retaining the category in a qualified form. Compare Aristotle's programme of explaining natural motion through the nature of bodies and different kinds of cause with Isaac Newton's organization of classical mechanics around definitions, Newton's laws of motion and mathematical consequences of specified forces. Newton's law of universal gravitation brought terrestrial falling bodies and planetary motion into one quantitative framework. That changed both the content of explanations and the problems they could solve: the same relation could constrain orbits, lunar motion and terrestrial gravitational acceleration. This is a substantial transformation even though Newtonian mechanics was later revised.^[ref][ref]

Instrumentation likewise altered what could count as evidence. Robert Boyle's air pump attached a transparent receiver to a mechanical means of removing air. Its value was not merely that an observer saw an unusual event. Successive operations could vary the condition of the enclosed gas, while observers compared such effects as the expansion of a partly inflated bladder and changes in combustion or animal breathing. The apparatus made contrasts that ordinary unaided observation could not easily produce. Yet its results depended on the quality of seals, the operator's skill and decisions about whether a trial had worked. Experiment was an organized achievement rather than nature speaking without mediation.^[ref]

The difficulty for an unqualified revolution narrative is that these changes did not have one method. Francis Bacon emphasized the disciplined ordering of instances and cautioned against premature generalization. Galileo Galilei deliberately reasoned about idealized motion, then connected its mathematical relations to particular trials. Isaac Newton built geometrical arguments concerning forces and used astronomical phenomena to select their application. These are related challenges to inherited authority, but not interchangeable versions of a universal method introduced on one date. Nor does a successful mathematical treatment of planetary motion establish an equally sudden transformation of all biology or medical practice.^{[ref][ref][ref]}

Continuities also matter. Euclid's Elements furnished a demonstrative tradition that early modern authors could adapt rather than invent. Existing astronomy supplied observations and problems without which a new celestial mechanics would have had little to explain. The Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton itself is predominantly geometrical in presentation: identifying modernity solely with replacement of geometry by symbolic calculus would misdescribe a central work of the supposed revolution. Equally, an investigator's religious commitments need not have disappeared for mathematical or experimental work to develop. The Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton's General Scholium combines claims about the limits of physical explanation with natural theology.^[ref][ref]

These qualifications expose a geographical and social selection problem. If the historian defines the event by a few successful European texts in astronomy and classical mechanics, then concludes that Europe suddenly acquired the scientific mentality, the selection has already determined much of the result. Robert Boyle's apparatus depended on skilled construction and operation; printed demonstrations depended on readers able to understand and assess them. A history of disembodied ideas misses the work that made claims credible. Conversely, locating that work in a social setting does not invalidate the measured relationships or make every contemporary theory equally successful.

The Scientific Revolution is defensible as a retrospective name for interconnected, uneven transformations, especially in astronomy, classical mechanics and experimental practice. It is misleading as a single moment when a universal scientific essence replaced ignorance. Steven Shapin's provocation improves the category by forcing its boundaries and assumptions into view. Abandoning the capitalized label is optional; abandoning the expectation of one origin, one method and one uniformly affected society is the more important historical correction.

A prime number is a positive integer $p>1$ whose only positive divisors are $1$ and $p$. The first ten prime numbers are $2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29$. In contrast, $12=3\cdot 4$ is a composite number because it has a positive divisor strictly between one and itself. The integer one is neither a prime number nor a composite number: the lower bound $p>1$ is part of the definition. Equivalently, the divisor function satisfies $\tau (p)=2$ for a prime number, whereas $\tau (1)=1$ and $\tau (n)\ge 3$ for every composite number $n$.

Prime numbers are the building blocks of positive integers under multiplication. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic says that every integer greater than one is a product of prime numbers, with a unique collection of factors when their order is ignored. For example, $12=2\cdot 2\cdot 3$ and $18=2\cdot 3\cdot 3$. Their common factors reveal the greatest common divisor $6$, and the combined maximum powers reveal the least common multiple $36$. A complicated divisibility question becomes a comparison of prime exponents.

There is also a useful finite test. If a composite number $n$ equals $ab$ with $1<a\le b$, then $a^2\le n$. Therefore some prime factor is at most $\sqrt{n}$, and trial division only needs to check prime numbers up to that square root. For $97$, checking $2,3,5,7$ suffices; none divides $97$, so it is a prime number. For $91$, the same test finds $7$, giving $91=7\cdot 13$. To find many prime numbers together, the sieve of Eratosthenes reuses the work by marking multiples.

The division with remainder calculations for $97$ make the test explicit:Since $9^2<97<10^2$, these are all the prime numbers at most its square root, and every remainder is nonzero. Thus the calculation certifies a prime number, without testing the integers $8,9,10,\dots ,96$ individually. In contrast, $91=7\cdot 13+0$ gives a prime factor and proves that $91$ is a composite number.

The definition has a long history. Book VII of Euclid's Elements distinguishes prime numbers from composite numbers through their possible measures; Book IX, Proposition 20 establishes that no finite list exhausts the prime numbers. The modern argument under Euclid's theorem needs only divisibility, so it proves an infinite conclusion without estimating how frequently prime numbers occur. ^{[ref] [ref]}.

For a right triangle in Euclidean geometry with perpendicular side lengths $a,b>0$ and hypotenuse $c$, the Pythagorean theorem statesGeometrically, the area of the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the areas of the squares on the other two sides. Euclid's Elements, Book I, Proposition 47 states this area equality; Proposition 48 states its converse: a triangle satisfying the equality has a right angle opposite side $c$.^[ref][ref]

For $a=3$ and $b=4$, we compute $c=\sqrt{9+16}=5$. The triangle has area $ab/2=6$, and its side lengths form a Pythagorean triple. Conversely, a triangle measured to have sides $3,4,5$ must have a right angle between the sides $3$ and $4$. This makes the equality both a calculation tool and a test for perpendicularity.

The three squares in the next figure have areas $3^2=9$, $4^2=16$ and $5^2=25$ in squared length units. These are different from the central right triangle's area $3\cdot 4/2=6$. The Pythagorean theorem adds the areas of the attached squares, not their side lengths and not the area of the triangle. The square on the hypotenuse is tilted, but a rotation preserves its area. This makes the formula visible without suggesting that the hypotenuse has to align with an axis.

Historically, Euclid's Elements records an organized proof of the Pythagorean theorem as an equality of areas, rather than the modern equation between numbers representing lengths. Its placement in Book I makes it available before the treatment of similar triangles in Book VI. This is evidence of how the result was established within that text; the name Pythagorean theorem alone does not establish who first discovered or proved it. The precise historical anchor here is the surviving proposition, rather than an unsupported story of a single inventor.^[ref]

The dissection below makes the general identity tangible. Both outer squares have side $a+b$ and contain the same four congruent right triangles. In the first arrangement, their hypotenuses bound a square of side $c$: adjacent acute angles together make a right angle. In the second, the uncovered regions are squares of sides $a$ and $b$. Subtracting the same total triangle area from equal outer areas givesFor the pictured dimensions, the shared uncovered area is $49-24=25=9+16$.

The same mechanism survives in inner product spaces: for orthogonal vectors $u,v$, expanding the inner product gives $\Vert u+v{\Vert }^2=\Vert u{\Vert }^2+\Vert v{\Vert }^2$. This is why orthogonal projection separates a squared distance into independent contributions. The familiar right triangle is the simplest picture of a much more reusable principle.

The sieve of Eratosthenes finds all prime numbers at most an integer $N\ge 2$. Start with the integers $2,\dots ,N$ marked as candidates. For each surviving candidate $p$ in increasing order, mark the multiples $p^2,p^2+p,\dots$ up to $N$ as composite numbers. Stop processing candidates once $p^2>N$: the surviving candidates are exactly the prime numbers. Starting at $p^2$ saves work because any smaller proper multiple of $p$ already has a smaller prime factor. ^[ref].

For a complete run with $N=60$, the only prime numbers at most $\sqrt{60}$ are $2,3,5,7$, since $7^2\le 60<8^2$. Exclude one before starting; it is not a prime number. The four marking passes are:

There are $59-29-9-3-1=17$ surviving prime numbers:The next surviving candidate is $11$, and $11^2>60$, so no further marking pass is necessary. A prime number used for marking remains a candidate: starting at $p^2$ never marks $p$ itself.

The saving from starting at $p^2$ is justified by the smaller multiplier: if $pk<p^2$ with $2\le k<p$, then $k$ has a prime factor $q<p$, so $q$ has already marked $pk$. For $p=7$, the earlier multiples $14,21,28,35,42$ have already been marked using $2,3$ or $5$. The first new possibility is $49$.

For $N=100$, only the prime numbers $2,3,5,7$ need marking passes. They remove all the composite numbers, leaving 25 prime numbers. The diagram colors each composite number by its smallest prime factor, so it shows which marking pass removes it first. The excluded integer one is shown separately.

Why does the algorithm work? A surviving candidate cannot be a composite number, since its smaller prime factor would already have removed it. Conversely, marking proper multiples never removes a prime number. Every composite number at most $N$ has a prime factor at most $\sqrt{N}$, so no later pass is needed. The sieve of Eratosthenes is useful when an entire bounded list is wanted; primality testing of one large integer is a different computational task.

The historical name is supported by a surviving primary account: Nicomachus, in Book I, chapter 13 of Introduction to Arithmetic, names Eratosthenes and describes separating prime numbers from composite numbers by marking multiples among the odd integers beginning with three. That passage documents the sieve tradition; the bounded algorithm above and its $p^2$ starting rule are the formulation explained here, rather than instructions quoted from Euclid's Elements. ^[ref]

Two triangles are similar if a Euclidean similarity maps one onto the other. Their corresponding angles agree, and corresponding side lengths have a common positive ratio.

Specify the correspondence first: $A$ matches $A^{\prime }$, $B$ matches $B^{\prime }$ and $C$ matches $C^{\prime }$. For similar triangles, the common scale factor $k>0$ satisfiesThe ratios compare matching sides in the same order. A Euclidean similarity can also move, turn or reflect the triangle; its orientation on the page is irrelevant. In the Euclidean plane, matching just two interior angles is enough: their sums force the third to match, and equal corresponding angles force the side ratios to agree. This is the angle-angle (AA) criterion for similar triangles. Matching just one angle is insufficient.

Scale the right triangle with vertices $(0,0)$, $(4,0)$ and $(0,3)$ by $k=2$. Its new vertices are $(0,0)$, $(8,0)$ and $(0,6)$, and its side lengths are $6,8,10$. The matching side ratios are $6/3=8/4=10/5=2$. Both triangles have a right angle and the same two other interior angles, approximately $36.87^{\circ }$ and $53.13^{\circ }$. However, their areas are $3\cdot 4/2=6$ and $6\cdot 8/2=24$: doubling lengths multiplies area by four.

Generally, a Euclidean similarity multiplies both a base and its perpendicular height by $k$, so the area becomes $\frac{1}{2}(kb)(kh)=k^2\frac{1}{2}bh$. This explains why an enlarged drawing needs four times as much surface when each length doubles. It also enables indirect measurement: under assumptions of level ground, vertical objects and parallel light rays, an object of height $3$ casting a shadow of length $4$ provides a right triangle. Another object's shadow of length $8$ gives a similar triangle and height $3(8/4)=6$. The shared angles justify the inference; visual resemblance alone does not.

Euclid's Elements VI, Definition 1 describes similarity using corresponding angles and proportional sides. VI.4 establishes the implication from matching angles to matching side ratios, while VI.19 states the squared relation between side ratios and areas. These are documented ancient formulations of the principles used above, without establishing a first discoverer.^{[ref][ref][ref]}

The sum-of-divisors function adds all positive integer divisors of a positive integer, including the number itself:It is the divisor sum of the identity arithmetic function $\mathrm{id}(n)=n$, so $\sigma =\mathrm{id}\ast 1$ under Dirichlet convolution. Both factors are multiplicative functions, hence so is the sum-of-divisors function. The notation ${\sigma }_1$ distinguishes it from other weighted divisor sums. ^[ref]

For a prime number $p$ and a nonnegative exponent $a$, the positive integer divisors of the prime power $p^a$ are precisely $1,p,\dots ,p^a$. Their finite geometric series givesFor example, $\sigma (8)=1+2+4+8=15=(2^4-1)/(2-1)$. For a prime factorization $n={\prod }_{k=1}^r{p}_k^{a_k}$ with distinct prime numbers $p_k$ and positive exponents $a_k$, multiplicativity givesFor $n=1$, this is an empty product, equal to $1$. ^[ref]

The distributive property makes the formula especially beautiful: choosing one term from each factor produces each positive integer divisor exactly once, by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. For $12=4\cdot 3=2^2\cdot 3$, the choices form a three-by-two grid with entries $2^i{3}^j$, where $0\le i\le 2$ and $0\le j\le 1$. Adding its rows givesThe divisor function counts six cells; the sum-of-divisors function adds their six values. Once the prime factorization is known, the product formula avoids testing every candidate integer divisor. Shared prime factors require care: $\sigma (4)=7\ne 9=\sigma (2{)}^2$, so the sum-of-divisors function is not a completely multiplicative function.

Subtracting the number itself gives the proper-divisor sum $s(n)=\sigma (n)-n$. Comparing $s(n)$ with $n$ distinguishes perfect numbers, deficient numbers, and abundant numbers. For $6$, $s(6)=1+2+3=6$; for $28$, $s(28)=1+2+4+7+14=28$. Both are perfect numbers. The calculation $s(8)=1+2+4=7<8$ makes $8$ a deficient number, while $s(12)=1+2+3+4+6=16>12$ makes $12$ an abundant number. These comparisons turn the sizes of integer divisors into a classification of positive integers. ^[ref]

This connection is ancient: Euclid's Elements, Book IX, Proposition 36, constructs a perfect number by multiplying the last term of $1,2,\dots ,2^{k-1}$ by their sum, when that sum is a prime number. In modern notation, put $q=2^k-1$ and $N=2^{k-1}q$, with $k\ge 2$ and $q$ a prime number. The sum-of-divisors function proves the construction immediately:Consequently the proper-divisor sum is $s(N)=N$. Taking $k=2,3$ produces the perfect numbers $6,28$. ^[ref]

A triangle is the convex hull of three noncollinear points: the three vertices must not lie on one line. Its boundary consists of the three joining line segments; depending on context, "triangle" can mean this boundary or the filled region it encloses. Here a triangle's area refers to the filled region. The noncollinearity assumption excludes a collapsed shape with zero area, for which ordinary interior angles are not defined.

For example, the positions $(0,0)$, $(4,0)$ and $(0,3)$ form a right triangle with a right angle at the origin. Taking the side of length $4$ as its base gives perpendicular height $3$, so its area is $4\cdot 3/2=6$. The height is measured at a right angle to the chosen base; it is not generally the length of another side. In this example it happens to be a side because the triangle is a right triangle.

By contrast, side lengths $3,4,6$ define a valid triangle: each side is shorter than the sum of the other two, as required by the strict triangle inequality. But $3^2+4^2=25\ne 36=6^2$, so this is not a right triangle and the Pythagorean theorem cannot calculate its longest side from the other two. The law of cosines instead gives the opposite interior angle $C$ throughThis example separates the definition of a triangle from the additional assumption of a right angle.

Every triangle in the Euclidean plane has interior angles summing to $\pi$ radians, a result proved in Euclid's Elements I.32.^[ref] It lets two measured angles determine the third, and underlies the angle-angle criterion for similar triangles. The qualification "Euclidean plane" matters: the earlier spherical triangle demonstrates a different sum.