In this post I am going to look at the inverse natural numbers, and the easiest way to do that is to look at Leonhard Euler's 'Theorem 7', also known as Euler’s Product Formula, from his 1744 published work 'Variae observationes circa series infinitas' Several Remarks on Infinite Series.
Theorem 7 of Euler's work concludes that the harmonic series is equal to the infinite product "where the numerators are all the prime numbers and the denominators are the numerators less one unit".
For a modern reference, you can checkout Wofram's Mathworld reference on the Euler product.
Can we model the factorization of the inverse naturals using this infinite product of inverse prime geometric power series?
Yes.
The infinite product of prime geometric power series in the naturals and the infinite product of inverse prime geometric power series are similar. Factorization in the naturals is in the numerator, and in the inverse naturals we have the exact same factorization but in the denominator. Outside of that, the models are identical.
The visual model of tracing distinct/unique multiplicative paths through the infinite product of inverse prime geometric power series.
So, as can be seen here, both the infinite product of prime geometric power series in the naturals and the infinite product of inverse prime geometric power series can model the factorization of their respective sets.
Note: I keep saying factorization in these posts regarding the infinite prime geometric power series products in the naturals and inverse naturals, but here I am not really working with factorization. Instead of taking the numbers in the respective sets and determining their factors, here I am starting with the actual creators, the mathematical objects that create/generate the members of the respective sets, the naturals and the inverse naturals. I am literally performing a reverse process. I am demonstrating that the prime geometric power series creates the infinite canonical representation of the factors of each member of each set.
There are two models we can use to examine factorization or multiplicative distribution of the above infinite product of prime geometric power series.
The first model is just a visual model of tracing distinct/unique multiplicative paths through the above infinite product of prime geometric power series.
The second model or method is to create a countably infinite multiplicative sequence.
Rules for the multiplicative sequences modeling the multiplicative distribution of the infinite product of prime geometric power series.
A multiplicative sequence must be distinct (unique).
A multiplicative sequence must have infinite terms, as there is a one-to-one correlation between a prime power series term and a term in the countably infinite multiplicative sequence model. There are countably infinite prime power series terms in the infinite product. There will be countably infinite terms in a multiplicative sequence.
The values that are selectable as a choice for each term are either 1 or an integer power of the respective prime power series.
A value must be selected for each and every infinite term.
Listing multiplicative sequences in the order of the natural numbers.
I am continuing my previous post, 'Foundations - The Counting Numbers', where I spoke of some of the shortcuts we are taught kind of unknowingly in mathematics. This post is about another one of those shortcuts that at first glance seems very trivial or even non-sensical. It is about factorization.
We know that the atoms per se of all natural numbers, inverse natural numbers, and rational numbers are the prime numbers, and this is all wrapped up in the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, the Unique Factorization Theorem.
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic states that every integer greater than 1 can be represented uniquely as a product of prime numbers, up to the order of the factors. This means that every natural number is either a prime number or a composite number made of primes or powers of primes.
$$ 137,200 = 2^4 \cdot 5^2 \cdot 7^3 $$
You will notice that in the above factorization there is no representation for the prime number 3. It may seem silly to write the factorization as this:
$$ 137,200 = 2^4 \cdot 3^0 \cdot 5^2 \cdot 7^3 $$
but it is entirely acceptable. It is one of those shortcuts. Why include $$3^0$$ in this factorization? $$3^0$$ is just 1 and 1 times a number is just the number.
This actually becomes important in later posts I am going to make. For now, I will provide a reference to the Canonical representation of factorization here: Canonical representation of a positive integer, which includes the following:
In fact, any positive integer can be uniquely represented as an infinite product taken over all the positive prime numbers
There is one caveat to this. We are working in the natural numbers, the positive integers. The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is defined for the natural numbers, the positive integers. All natural numbers, positive integers, are finite. There are countably infinite elements in the set of natural numbers, but every single element is a finite number. This means writing any natural number as its factorization with infinite terms requires that there are only finitely many terms with prime factors with powers that are non-zero. No matter how large the number, writing its infinitely termed factorization will have a point in its progression to the right where every further prime power term is the respective prime raised to the zero power.
So every natural number, positive integer, will have a specific form or signature in its infinitely termed factorization, where everything in the rightward progression eventually becomes the respective prime to the zero power, or 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,... This is for every natural number, positive integer, no matter how large.
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic directly implies the following:
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is an infinite product of prime geometric power series.
Now several people will say, "Prove that the above infinite product of prime geometric power series is the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. If that is requested, I will provide it. It will be simple but long. I did it 30 years ago by pencil and paper and 20 years ago by Excel spreadsheet. It goes back to 2300 years ago and the sieve of Eratosthenes and its removal sets / Smallest Common Factor (SCF) sets. Analyzing the SCF sets shows that they are the above construction of an infinite product of prime geometric power series.
Discussing my educational foundation in mathematics, I think, is probably very similar to many average people. But first, I think I have to provide a little background to begin this first post—my own background. What is my educational background in mathematics?
I really have no advanced mathematical education. I have no degree. I have no CV (curriculum vitae). My mathematical education is simply from the American educational system, grades 1–12, from the 1960s and 1970s. So my blog posts here will be limited to that, mostly basic stuff, basic algebra. I have forgotten most of the geometry, trigonometry, probabilities and statistics, and pre-calculus. I was a good student, but I did not take it any further than grades 1–12.
That being said, how did I learn about numbers?
I think like most people, I started learning about numbers either in pre-school or first grade by learning to count: 1 2 3 4 5 6... What are the counting numbers? They are the natural numbers, the positive integers, the positive integers greater than 0, etc.
In those early formative years, whether it was the first grade or earlier, we learn about these numbers. We learn how to count. Then, over time, and as we move on to the next grade level in school, we learn how to add them, how to subtract them, and then multiplication and division. Eventually we learn the properties: commutative property, associative property, distributive property, and identity property. Moving on, we learn about fractions (ratios) and how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide them. We learn about exponentiation (powers).
Where is this all going? Well, I will try to speed it up a bit. Eventually I want to point out some shortcomings in this educational process—the shortcuts and assumptions I spoke of in my 'Introduction' post. So let's just make a list here of things I learned through grades 1–12. A brief list, not necessarily complete or in perfect order, but an approximation, and then I will speak of those shortcomings, the shortcuts and built-in assumptions that, in later posts to follow, will become very important.
The point is, all of this is based on counting numbers, learning to count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...
If you continue on with your mathematical education, mathematics is so vast and so complicated that, in comparison to the simple education I have talked about above, this simple education is maybe one quadrillionth of one percent of the vast knowledge produced in the field of mathematics. It is probably even way, way less than that. But still, everyone started with counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...
So now I will point out what I feel are some of the built-in assumptions and/or shortcuts in that grade 1–12 education that I think affect everyone in their journey of the math world.
The counting numbers, natural numbers or positive integers. {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,...} n+1. The set of natural numbers has countably infinite members. Each element of the countably infinite set of natural numbers, however, is finite.
The inverse natural numbers. {1,1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5,1/6,1/7,...} 1/n+1. The set of inverse natural numbers has countably infinite members. Each element of the countably infinite set of inverse natural numbers, however, is finite.
Because we begin to learn with counting numbers, we do not learn immediately that they are also a ratio, a fraction, 2 = 2/1, 3 = 3/1, 4 = 4/1, 5 = 5/1,... We do learn this eventually, and everyone knows this, but it seems silly to write them as a fraction/ratio because any number divided by 1 is that number, understandable, but it is a shortcut.
There is no shortcut for writing the inverse naturals. We are forced to write it as a ratio/fraction, there is no other way, we have to write 1 divided by n. This is entirely understandable, as I cannot imagine learning how to count where you are taught from the get-go 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1,... You are imposing the notion of fractions/ratios and division on a child just learning how to count, and the first thing they are going to ask is why all the counting numbers are written so strangely. None the less, these shortcuts exist.
Another example is when we learn exponentiation. Generally we write 7, instead of $$7^1$$, but to write seven to the inverse first power we have to write $$7^{-1}$$.
Once again, not a big deal, but once again a shortcut.
Now this next shortcut I am going to discuss I think is more of a big deal. Maybe even catastrophic. It is not that we do not know they are shortcuts or that we were never taught the long way of writing these expressions, but after years and years of reinforcing the use of these shortcuts over and over, we tend to build reinforcing circuits in our brains and we tend to forget the other ways or the not shortcut ways of expression, and I think in at least one case that is very detrimental.
Factorization of natural numbers and inverse natural numbers
At some point in our early mathematical education, we learn factorization. The prime numbers, the 'Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic', also known as the 'Unique Factorization Theorem'. This basic theorem goes all the way back to the third century BCE and Euclid's Elements. It is foundational.
I started this blog back in 2005 and really never made use of it. I have decided now, 19 years later, to revive it and hopefully use it. I am not sure if anyone at all will ever read it, but none the less, I would like to document some of the things that I think about and have questions about.
The first topic I think I will begin talking about are some simple questions I have about mathematics. I will start with my own personal experience in mathematical education and how I think I was misled (to some degree) with assumptions and shortcuts built into that education that to some degree shaped my world view and have robbed me from seeing things in a more open and unlimited way. I am then going to try to build on that first post, build on it slowly with further posts, and refer back to it periodically to try to demonstrate why I think that something is wrong with the foundations of mathematics.
This first topic may take 20-30 posts. I would like to make the posts not too long, and there is a lot of ground to cover.
In the future, I will expand my topics into other areas of interest.