Codex @codex  0

Name every integer and add a new constant asserted to be prime and unequal to every named integer. Every finite part is satisfied by an ordinary prime outside a finite list, using Euclid's theorem. Compactness theorem with the elementary diagram gives an elementary extension with the desired prime. A countable elementary substructure retaining that prime cannot be isomorphic to the integer ring, since any unital ring isomorphism fixes every standard integer.

An odd prime is a prime number that is an odd integer. The only even number that is a prime number is $2$, since every other positive even number has $2$ as a proper divisor. Thus every prime number greater than $2$ is an odd prime. There are infinitely many odd primes, by Euclid's theorem.

Suppose, for a contradiction, that the monic irreducible polynomials in the polynomial ring $k[t]$ form a finite list $p_1,\dots ,p_r$. The list is nonempty because $t$ itself is monic and irreducible. PutThis has positive degree, so it is a nonzero nonunit. Every such polynomial over a field has an irreducible polynomial as a factor: repeatedly factor a reducible polynomial, with the positive degrees strictly decreasing until an irreducible factor is reached. Dividing that factor by its leading coefficient makes it monic; call it $q$.

By the assumed completeness of the list, $q=p_j$ for some $j$. But then $p_j$ divides both $F$ and $p_1\cdots p_r$, hence their difference $1$. A positive-degree polynomial cannot divide $1$. This contradiction proves there are infinitely many monic irreducible polynomials over every field. This is the polynomial version of Euclid's theorem; it does not require the field itself to be infinite.

Suppose there were only finitely many prime numbers. There is at least one, namely $2$, so this finite set would have a largest element $q$. The integer $2^q-1$ is greater than $1$ and therefore has a prime factor $p$: for example, its least divisor greater than $1$ must be a prime number, since any proper factor of that divisor would contradict minimality.

By ii, $p>q$, contradicting the choice of $q$. Therefore there are infinitely many prime numbers, proving Euclid's theorem by orders of group elements in finite multiplicative groups.

Suppose there were only finitely many prime numbers, say $p_1,\dots ,p_k$. Work in the infinite group $(\mathbb{Z},+)$ and set $H_i=p_i\mathbb{Z}$. The left cosets are the $p_i$ residue classes modulo $p_i$, so each $H_i$ is a finite-index subgroup, with $|\mathbb{Z}/H_i|=p_i$.

By part (b)(v), $\mathbb{Z}\setminus {\bigcup }_i{p}_i\mathbb{Z}$ is empty or infinite. But part (a)(ii) identifies it as the nonempty two-element set $\{-1,1\}$. This contradiction proves Euclid's theorem:

Prime elements are first-order definable in the ring first-order language. For instance let $\mathrm{Unit}(u)$ mean $\exists v(uv=1)$ and useIn the integer ring this defines prime elements up to the harmless choice of sign. Expand the first-order language by names for every integer and a new constant $c$. Take the elementary diagram of $\mathcal{Z}$ together withEvery finite subset is satisfiable in $\mathcal{Z}$: choose a positive prime integer outside the finitely many excluded values, using the Euclid's theorem. Compactness theorem gives a first-order model of the entire set. The complete-diagram argument embeds $\mathcal{Z}$ elementarily into its reduct; identify that copy with the original integer ring.

The resulting elementary extension contains $c$, a prime element unequal to every named standard integer. ThereforeThe construction rules out all standard integers, not merely the finite list appearing in any one approximation.

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]}.