Westonci.ca is the best place to get answers to your questions, provided by a community of experienced and knowledgeable experts. Discover a wealth of knowledge from experts across different disciplines on our comprehensive Q&A platform. Connect with a community of professionals ready to help you find accurate solutions to your questions quickly and efficiently.
Sagot :
Let's carefully analyze why the least whole number divisor of a composite number, other than 1, must be prime.
A composite number is defined as a number that is not prime and has factors other than 1 and itself. For example, 12 is a composite number because it has divisors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12.
Let's take a closer look at the arguments for each option:
Option A:
- This option states that if a number [tex]\( d \)[/tex] divides a number [tex]\( n \)[/tex], then every number which divides [tex]\( d \)[/tex] also divides [tex]\( n \)[/tex]. If the least whole number divisor other than 1 was not prime, it would have a factor other than 1 and itself, and this factor would also divide [tex]\( n \)[/tex].
- To break this down, let's consider a composite number [tex]\( n \)[/tex]. The least whole number divisor of [tex]\( n \)[/tex] greater than 1 would be a number [tex]\( d \)[/tex] where [tex]\( d \cdot k = n \)[/tex]. If [tex]\( d \)[/tex] is not prime, it would have divisors other than 1 and itself, say [tex]\( p \)[/tex] and [tex]\( q \)[/tex] where [tex]\( p \cdot q = d \)[/tex]. Since [tex]\( d \)[/tex] divides [tex]\( n \)[/tex] and [tex]\( p \)[/tex] divides [tex]\( d \)[/tex], [tex]\( p \)[/tex] must also divide [tex]\( n \)[/tex]. However, this contradicts our assumption that [tex]\( d \)[/tex] is the least whole number divisor greater than 1. Therefore, [tex]\( d \)[/tex] must be prime. This statement is correct.
Option B:
- This option seems to derive its conclusion based on 2 and 3 being the least positive whole numbers other than 1 and being prime. While this is true, it doesn't fully explain why the least whole number divisor of a composite number must be prime.
Option C:
- This option states that every divisor of a composite number is prime. This is incorrect; every divisor of a composite number is not necessarily prime. For example, for the composite number 12, the divisors include 4 and 6, which are not prime.
Option D:
- This option incorrectly states that a composite number has no factors other than 1 and itself. This is the definition of a prime number, not a composite number. Therefore, this option is incorrect.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
OA. If a number [tex]\( d \)[/tex] divides a number [tex]\( n \)[/tex], then every number which divides [tex]\( d \)[/tex] also divides [tex]\( n \)[/tex]. If the least whole number divisor other than 1 was not prime, then it would have a factor other than 1 and itself, and this factor would also divide [tex]\( n \)[/tex].
A composite number is defined as a number that is not prime and has factors other than 1 and itself. For example, 12 is a composite number because it has divisors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12.
Let's take a closer look at the arguments for each option:
Option A:
- This option states that if a number [tex]\( d \)[/tex] divides a number [tex]\( n \)[/tex], then every number which divides [tex]\( d \)[/tex] also divides [tex]\( n \)[/tex]. If the least whole number divisor other than 1 was not prime, it would have a factor other than 1 and itself, and this factor would also divide [tex]\( n \)[/tex].
- To break this down, let's consider a composite number [tex]\( n \)[/tex]. The least whole number divisor of [tex]\( n \)[/tex] greater than 1 would be a number [tex]\( d \)[/tex] where [tex]\( d \cdot k = n \)[/tex]. If [tex]\( d \)[/tex] is not prime, it would have divisors other than 1 and itself, say [tex]\( p \)[/tex] and [tex]\( q \)[/tex] where [tex]\( p \cdot q = d \)[/tex]. Since [tex]\( d \)[/tex] divides [tex]\( n \)[/tex] and [tex]\( p \)[/tex] divides [tex]\( d \)[/tex], [tex]\( p \)[/tex] must also divide [tex]\( n \)[/tex]. However, this contradicts our assumption that [tex]\( d \)[/tex] is the least whole number divisor greater than 1. Therefore, [tex]\( d \)[/tex] must be prime. This statement is correct.
Option B:
- This option seems to derive its conclusion based on 2 and 3 being the least positive whole numbers other than 1 and being prime. While this is true, it doesn't fully explain why the least whole number divisor of a composite number must be prime.
Option C:
- This option states that every divisor of a composite number is prime. This is incorrect; every divisor of a composite number is not necessarily prime. For example, for the composite number 12, the divisors include 4 and 6, which are not prime.
Option D:
- This option incorrectly states that a composite number has no factors other than 1 and itself. This is the definition of a prime number, not a composite number. Therefore, this option is incorrect.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
OA. If a number [tex]\( d \)[/tex] divides a number [tex]\( n \)[/tex], then every number which divides [tex]\( d \)[/tex] also divides [tex]\( n \)[/tex]. If the least whole number divisor other than 1 was not prime, then it would have a factor other than 1 and itself, and this factor would also divide [tex]\( n \)[/tex].
Thank you for visiting our platform. We hope you found the answers you were looking for. Come back anytime you need more information. We appreciate your visit. Our platform is always here to offer accurate and reliable answers. Return anytime. We're dedicated to helping you find the answers you need at Westonci.ca. Don't hesitate to return for more.
