Prime Series 1: Introduction to Prime Numbers

We have learned from elementary school mathematics that a prime number has only two factors, 1 and itself. For example, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are prime numbers, while 8 is not prime because it has four factors — 1, 2, 4, and 8. Numbers that are not prime are called composite numbers.

Geometric Interpretation of Prime and Composite Numbers

Mathematicians during the ancient times, particularly the Greeks, always make  use of geometric interpretations of numbers. Square numbers, for example, are represented with pebbles arranged with the same number of rows and columns.  The first five square numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16 and 25.

Rectangular numbers are also popular. For instance, the number 12 can be interpreted pebbles arranged in rectangles with the following dimensions: 3 by 4, 2 by 6 and 12 by 1. If we are going to use squares instead of pebbles, the geometric representations of these arrangements are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Different rectangular arrangements of 12 pebbles represented by squares.

Numbers that cannot be arranged as more than one rectangle are prime numbers. In our example above, 12 has three possible arrangements, while the numbers 3, 5 and 7 can only be arranged in a single row.

Figure 2 – Rectangular arrangements of 3, 5 and 7 pebbles represented by squares.

As we can see, this is the geometric interpretation of the definition that the factors of primes are only 1 and itself.

Sieve of Eratosthenes

The Greek philosopher and mathematician Eratosthenes was the first to be credited in identifying primes in a finite list by brute force.  The strategy is to list a finite set of counting numbers in increasing order, then starting with 2 eliminate all its multiples. This eliminates all even numbers except 2. Then we follow the same pattern: we eliminate multiples of 3 greater than 3, eliminate all multiples of 5 greater than 5 and so on, until all the numbers left are not multiples of any number smaller than it. The remaining numbers after all elimination are prime numbers.

The primes numbers less than 100 are shown in white cells in the table below. The numbers in the yellow cells are composite numbers.  Mathematicians agreed not to include 1 in the set of prime numbers or the set of composite numbers.

Figure 3 - The sieve of Eratosthenes shows primes less than 100 in white table cells..

If we look at the table above, we could not probably see a pattern about the number of primes in a given interval; however, if we investigate further, as the intervals increase, the number of primes is getting fewer and fewer. For example, there are 168 primes between 1 and 1000, 135 primes between 1000 and 2000, 127 primes between 2000 and 3000, and 120 primes between 3000 and 4000. With this observation, we want to ask the following question:

Is there a particular prime number, that after such number, we could no longer find primes?

 or equivalently,

Are prime numbers finite?

We will answer this in the continuation of this article titled  “Infinitude of Primes.” The formal proof of this conjecture is also discussed in the third part.

Is 0.999… really equal to 1?


Yes it is. 0.999…  is equal to 1.

Before we begin our discussion, let me make a remark that the symbol “…” in the decimal 0.999… means that the there are infinitely many 9’s,  or putting it in plain language, the decimal number has no end.

For non-math persons, you will probably disagree with the equality, but there are many elementary proofs that could show it, some of which, I have shown below. A proof is a series of valid, logical and relevant arguments (see Introduction to Mathematical Proofs for details), that shows the truth or falsity of a statement.

Proof 1

\frac{1}{3} = 0.333 \cdots

\frac{2}{3} = 0.666 \cdots

\frac{1}{3} + \frac{2}{3} = 0.333 \cdots + 0.666 \cdots

\frac{3}{3} =0.999 \cdots

But \frac{3}{3} = 1, therefore 1 =0.999 \cdots

Proof 2

\frac{1}{9} = 0.111 \cdots
Multiplying both sides by 9 we have

1 = 0.999 \cdots

Proof 3

Let x = 0.999 \cdots

10x = 9.999 \cdots

10x - x = 9.999 \cdots - 0.9999 \cdots

9x = 9

x = 1

Hence, 0.999 \cdots = 1

Still in doubt?

Many will probably be reluctant in accepting the equality 1 = 0.999 \cdots because the representation is a bit counterintuitive.  The said equality requires the notion of the real number system, a good grasp of the concept of limits, and knowledge on infinitesimals or calculus in general.  If, for instance,you have already taken sequences (in calculus), you may think of the 0.999 \cdots as a sequence of real numbers (0.9, 0.99, 0.999,\cdots). Note that the sequence gets closer and closer to 1, and therefore, its limit is 1.

Infinite Geometric Sequence

My final attempt to convince you that 0.999 \cdots is indeed equal to 1 is by the infinite geometric sequence. For the sake of brevity, in the remaining part of this article, we will simply use the term “infinite sequence” to refer to an infinite geometric sequence.  We will use the concept of the sum of an infinite sequence, which is known as an infinite series, to show that 0.999 \cdots = 1.

One example of an infinite series is \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{16} + \cdots.  If you add its  infinite number of terms, the answer is equal to 1. Again, this is counterintuitive.

How can addition of numbers with infinite number of terms have an exact (or a finite) answer?

There is a formula to get the sum of an infinite geometric sequence, but before we discuss the formula, let me give the geometric interpretation of the sum above. The sum \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{16} + \cdots can be represented geometrically using a 1 unit by 1 unit square as shown below. If we divide the square into two, then we will have two rectangles, each of which has area \frac{1}{2} square units. Dividing the other half into two, then we have three rectangles with areas \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{4}, \frac{1}{4} square units. Dividing the one of the smaller rectangle into two, then we have four rectangles with areas \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{4}, \frac{1}{8}, \frac{1}{8}. Again, dividing one of the smallest rectangle into two, we have five rectangles with areas \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{4}, \frac{1}{8}, \frac{1}{16}, and \frac{1}{16} Since this process can go on forever, the sum of all the areas of all the rectangles will equal to 1, which is the area of the original square.

Now that we have seen that an infinite series can have a finite sum, we will now show that 0.999 \cdots can be expressed as a finite sum by expressing it as an infinite series. The number 0.999 \cdots can be expressed as an infinite series 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + \cdots. Converting it in fractional form, we have  \frac{9}{10} + \frac{9}{100} + \frac{9}{1000} + \cdots.

We have learned that the sum of the infinite series with first term \displaystyle a_1 and ratio r is described by \displaystyle\frac{a_1}{1-r}. Applying the formula to our series above, we have

\displaystyle\frac{\frac{9}{10}}{1-\frac{1}{10}} = 1

Therefore, the sum our infinite series is 1.


This implication of the equality 0.999 \cdots =1 means that any rational number that is a non-repeating decimal can be expressed as a repeating decimal. Since 0.999 \cdots =1, it follows that 0.0999 \cdots =0.1, 0.00999 \cdots=0.01 and so on. Hence, any decimal number maybe expressed as number + 0.00…01. For example, the decimal 4.7, can be expressed as 4.6 + 0.1 = 4.6 + 0.0999 \cdots = 4.6999 \cdots. The number 0.874 can also be expressed as 0.873 + 0.001 = 0.873 + 0.000999 \cdots = 0.873999 \cdots


Any of the four proofs above is actually sufficient to show that 0.999 \cdots = 1.  Although this concept is quite hard to accept, we should remember that in mathematics, as long as the steps of operations or reasoning performed are valid and logical, the conclusion will be unquestionably valid.

There are many counterintuitive concepts in mathematics and the equality 0.999 \cdots = 1 is only one of the many.  In my post, Counting the Uncountable: A Glimpse at the Infinite, we have also encountered one:   that the number of integers (negative, 0, positive) is equal to the number of counting numbers (positive integers) and we have shown it by one-to-one pairing. We have also shown that the number of counting numbers is the same as the number of rational numbers. Thus, we have shown that a subset can have the same element as the “supposed” bigger set.  I guess that is what makes mathematics unique; intuitively, some concepts do not make sense, but by valid and logical reasoning, they perfectly do.


  1. You can find discussions about 0.999… = 1 here and here.
  2. There is another good post about it here and here.
Related Articles
1 2