## Proposition 13

 If as many numbers as we please beginning from a unit are in continued proportion, and the number after the unit is prime, then the greatest is not measured by any except those which have a place among the proportional numbers. Let there be as many numbers as we please, A, B, C, and D, beginning from a unit and in continued proportion, and let A, the number after the unit, be prime. I say that D, the greatest of them, is not measured by any other number except A, B, or C. If possible, let it be measured by E, and let E not be the same with any of the numbers A, B, or C. It is then manifest that E is not prime, for if E is prime and measures D, then it also measures A, which is prime, though it is not the same with it, which is impossible. Therefore E is not prime, so it is composite. IX.12 But any composite number is measured by some prime number, therefore E is measured by some prime number. VII.31 I say next that it is no measured by any other prime except A. If E is measured by another, and E measures D, then that other measures D, so that it also measures A, which is prime, though it is not the same with it, which is impossible. Therefore [only the prime] A measures E. IX.12 And, since E measures D, let it measure it according to F. I say that F is not the same with any of the numbers A, B, or C. If F is the same with one of the numbers A, B, or C, and measures D according to E, then one of the numbers A, B, or C also measures D according to E. But one of the numbers A, B, or C measures D according to some one of the numbers A, B, or C, therefore E is also the same with one of the numbers A, B or C, which is contrary to the hypothesis. IX.11 Therefore F is not the same as any one of the numbers A, B, or C. Similarly we can prove that F is measured by A, by proving again that F is not prime. If it is, and measures D, then it also measures A, which is prime, though it is not the same with it, which is impossible. Therefore F is not prime, so it is composite. IX.12 But any composite number is measured by some prime number, therefore F is measured by some prime number. VII.31 I say next that it is not measured by any other prime except A. If any other prime number measures F, and F measures D, then that other also measures D, so that it also measures A, which is prime, though it is not the same with it, which is impossible. Therefore [only the prime] A measures F. IX.12 And, since E measures D according to F, therefore E multiplied by F makes D. But, further, A multiplied by C makes D, therefore the product of A and C equals the product of E and F. IX.11 Therefore, proportionally A is to E as F is to C. VII.19 But A measures E, therefore F also measures C. Let it measure it according to G. Similarly, then, we can prove that G is not the same with any of the numbers A or B, and that it is measured by A. And, since F measures C according to G, therefore F multiplied by G makes C. But, further, A multiplied by B makes C, therefore the product of A and B equals the product of F and G. Therefore, proportionally A is to F as G is to B. IX.11 VII.19 But A measures F, therefore G also measures B. Let it measure it according to H. Similarly then we can prove that H is not the same with A. And, since G measures B according to H, therefore G multiplied by H makes B. But, further, A multiplied by itself makes B, therefore the product of H and G equals the square on A. IX.8 Therefore H is to A as A is to G. But A measures G, therefore H also measures A, which is prime, though it is not the same with it, which is absurd. VII.19 Therefore D the greatest is not measured by any other number except A, B, or C. Therefore, if as many numbers as we please beginning from a unit are in continued proportion, and the number after the unit is prime, then the greatest is not measured by any except those which have a place among the proportional numbers. Q.E.D.
This proposition says that the only numbers that can divide a power of a prime are smaller powers of that prime.

#### Outline of the proof

The proof involves a reduction step like that in the proof of the previous proposition.

Suppose a number e divides a power pk of a prime number p, but e does not equal any lower power of p.

First note that e can't be prime itself, since then it would divide p (IX.12), which it doesn't.

Then e is composite. Then some prime number q divides e (VII.31). Then q also divides pk, which it implies q divides p. Therefore, the only prime that can divide e is p.

The rest of the proof is repeated reduction of the power k. Since e is not 1, it is divisible by p. Let g be e/p. Then g divides pk-1, but is not any lower power of p. Then the same argument can be applied. Continue in this manner until some number divides p but is not 1 or p, a contradiction. Thus, the only numbers that can divide a power of a prime are smaller powers of the prime.

#### Use of this proposition

This proposition is used in IX.32 and IX.36.

Next proposition: IX.14

Previous: IX.12

 Select from Book IX Book IX intro IX.1 IX.2 IX.3 IX.4 IX.5 IX.6 IX.7 IX.8 IX.9 IX.10 IX.11 IX.12 IX.13 IX.14 IX.15 IX.16 IX.17 IX.18 IX.19 IX.20 IX.21 IX.22 IX.23 IX.24 IX.25 IX.26 IX.27 IX.27 IX.28 IX.29 IX.30 IX.31 IX.32 IX.33 IX.34 IX.35 IX.36 Select book Book I Book II Book III Book IV Book V Book VI Book VII Book VIII Book IX Book X Book XI Book XII Book XIII Select topic Introduction Table of Contents Geometry applet About the text Euclid Web references A quick trip