Do most composite numbers have a large prime factor?

[TreueEckhardt2]

Do most composite numbers have a large prime factor? 

First, I’ll define what I mean by a “large” prime factor.  Let N be a number.  If a prime factor of N is greater than the square root of N, then that factor is a large prime factor of N. 

As an example, 11 is a large prime factor of 22, because 11 is greater than the square root of 22, and so 22 has a large prime factor

On the other hand, 3 is not a large prime factor of 12 because 3 is less than the square root of 12, and so 12 does not have a large prime factor.   

Below is a list of composite numbers with large prime factors:

6, 10, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 74, …

It seems that, as numbers increase, a greater and greater percentage of them have large prime factors.  I say that that seems to be true, because I have sampled some groups of big numbers, and most of them had large prime factors.  Of course, that isn’t proof and as far as I know it could also be wrong. 

If we check all of the numbers up to 330, the majority of counting numbers are composite numbers with large prime factors.

If I understand it correctly, then what I’m asking about is similar to the question answered by the Prime Number Theorem.  According to the Prime Number Theorem, for a very large number N, the probability that a random integer not greater than N is prime is equal to 1/log(N). 

Because the prime numbers are distributed in this way, and 1/log(N) can be arbitrarily close to zero, the composite numbers can be seen as essentially the same as all integers, for very large values of N.  For very large numbers, my question is the same as asking what percentage of all integers have a large prime factor.   

My question is, “For a very large number N, what is the probability that a random integer less than N has a large prime factor?”  “Is this probability greater than 0.5?”  I’m hoping there might be some kind of answer to this in the same way that the Prime Number Theorem answers the question about the distribution of prime numbers.     

[ahmet]

to me,I have not seen  rational contexts for these explanations. but not sure. maybe some other mathematicians' idea might be suitable to make more clear explanation.

for a general redirectory or recommendation: I suggest that you follow general algebraic contexts(this means that this thread can be analyzed under algebra  and number theory)

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by ahmet
missing points that automatically removed

[TreueEckhardt2]

Thank you for your response.  When you say, "This thread can be analyzed under algebra and number theory," Do you mean that I should post this topic on a different website that deals with algebra and number theory?  Or maybe I should post to the general forum instead of this subforum?

[ahmet]

11 hours ago, TreueEckhardt2 said:

Thank you for your response.  When you say, "This thread can be analyzed under algebra and number theory," Do you mean that I should post this topic on a different website that deals with algebra and number theory?  Or maybe I should post to the general forum instead of this subforum?

hi,

no, both this website and subforum are correct location for discussion but I meant two things:

i. I recommended that you check algebra (general) and number theory contexts (i.e. books, aricles or notations) 

ii. other approaches would potentially be off topic.

some other mathematicians' ideas would be good here, because I might have forgotten some theorems or maybe I do not remember all of them.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by ahmet
spelling

[TreueEckhardt2]

I think I have found an answer to the question.  For a random positive integer, the probability that its largest prime factor is greater than the square root of the integer is ln2.  I found the answer on the following web page:

 

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreatestPrimeFactor.html