Skip to content

Cartesian Product

Prime #
688
Origin domain
Mathematics
Subdomain
set theory combinatorics → Mathematics

Core Idea

The Cartesian product is the construction that pairs every element of one collection with every element of another, generating the set of all ordered tuples that take exactly one choice from each dimension. Given sets \(A\) and \(B\), the product \(A \times B\) is the set of ordered pairs \((a, b)\) with \(a \in A\) and \(b \in B\); generalized to \(n\) collections, the construction produces every combination of one choice per axis. The structural move is unrestricted combination: no rule excludes any pairing at the construction step, order is preserved (tuples are ordered, so \((a,b) \neq (b,a)\) in general), and the size of the result is the product of the sizes of the inputs. This last fact — multiplicative rather than additive growth — is the source of both the construction's reach and its danger.

Three commitments travel with the product wherever it appears. First, independence of dimensions: each axis is a free choice unconstrained by the others, so the product is the grammar-free limit of combination — every tuple is admissible until some later filter removes it. Second, order and identity of axes: the dimensions are named and distinguishable, so a tuple is not a bag of values but an assignment of one value to each labelled slot. Third, multiplicative cardinality: \(|A \times B \times \cdots| = |A| \cdot |B| \cdots\), which means the joint space inflates combinatorially as dimensions are added. The product is therefore a three-or-more-way relation hiding under a binary-looking operator: it is the canonical way of building a multi-dimensional state space out of independent univariate choices, and the canonical site at which combinatorial explosion first becomes visible.

How would you explain it like I'm…

Every Outfit Maker

Imagine you have 3 shirts and 2 pairs of pants. A Cartesian Product is making EVERY outfit: each shirt goes with each pair of pants. You don't skip any combo, so you end up with 3 times 2 equals 6 outfits. Every shirt meets every pants.

All Combinations Machine

The Cartesian Product is a way to make every possible combination from two (or more) lists by taking one thing from each list. If a menu has 4 flavors of ice cream and 3 toppings, then there are 4 times 3 = 12 different sundaes you could order. The order matters: "chocolate with sprinkles" is written as a pair, and the flavor slot and topping slot stay separate. Notice it grows by multiplying, so adding a third list (like cones) makes the number explode fast.

One Choice Per Axis

The Cartesian Product of sets A and B, written A x B, is the set of all ordered pairs (a, b) where a comes from A and b comes from B. "Ordered" means each slot is labeled, so (apple, red) is a different pair than (red, apple). Crucially, nothing is forbidden at this stage: every element of A pairs with every element of B, with no rule throwing combinations out. The size of the result is the product of the sizes — |A| times |B| — not the sum, which is why this is where "combinatorial explosion" first shows up. It generalizes to any number of sets, producing tuples that take exactly one choice per dimension.

 

The Cartesian Product is the construction that pairs every element of one collection with every element of another, generating all ordered tuples that take exactly one choice from each axis. For sets A and B, A x B is the set of ordered pairs (a, b) with a in A and b in B; for n collections it yields every combination of one choice per axis. Three commitments travel with it. First, independence of dimensions: each axis is a free, unconstrained choice, so the product is the grammar-free limit of combination — every tuple is admissible until some later filter removes it. Second, order and identity of axes: dimensions are named and distinguishable, so a tuple is an assignment of one value to each labeled slot, not an unordered bag. Third, multiplicative cardinality: the size of the result equals the product of the input sizes, so the joint space inflates combinatorially as dimensions are added. It is essentially a three-or-more-way relation hiding under a binary-looking operator — the canonical way to build a multi-dimensional state space from independent univariate choices, and the canonical site where combinatorial explosion becomes visible.

Structural Signature

the named, ordered dimensions — the value set on each dimension — the independence of the dimensions — the unrestricted combination taking one choice per axis — the ordered tuple assigning a value to each labelled slot — the multiplicative cardinality equal to the product of the dimension sizes

The pattern is present when each of the following holds:

  1. Named, ordered dimensions. Two or more axes are identified and distinguishable, each a labelled slot rather than an interchangeable position.

  2. A value set per dimension. Each axis carries a collection of admissible choices.

  3. Independence of dimensions. Each axis is a free choice unconstrained by the others at the construction step — the grammar-free limit of combination.

  4. Unrestricted combination. The construction forms every selection of exactly one value from each axis, with no rule excluding any combination until a later filter is applied.

  5. Ordered tuples. Each result is an ordered assignment of one value to each named slot, so a tuple is an axis-indexed assignment, not an unordered bag.

  6. Multiplicative cardinality. The size of the result is the product of the dimension sizes, so the joint space inflates combinatorially as axes are added — the canonical site at which explosion first becomes visible.

These compose into a three-or-more-way relation hiding under a binary-looking operator: the canonical way to build a multi-dimensional state space from independent univariate choices, and the unconstrained superset from which any later constraint, separability, projection, or sampling carves.

What It Is Not

  • Not factorial_design. A full factorial design is a Cartesian product of factor-level sets — but factorial design is the experimental method (with its replication, randomisation, effect-estimation apparatus); the Cartesian product is the bare combinatorial construction underneath it. See factorial_design.
  • Not relation in general. A relation is any subset of a Cartesian product (a chosen set of tuples satisfying some condition); the Cartesian product is the unconstrained superset of all tuples, from which relations carve. The product is the grammar-free limit; a relation is a constrained subset.
  • Not cardinality. Cardinality is the size of a set; the Cartesian product is the construction whose size is the product of the dimension sizes. Multiplicative cardinality is a consequence, not the construction.
  • Not set_and_membership. Set membership is the primitive relation of belonging; the Cartesian product is a derived construction forming ordered tuples across sets. One is the base notion; the other builds on it.
  • Not degrees_of_freedom. Degrees of freedom count independent directions of variation; the Cartesian product generates the joint space those dimensions span. The count is downstream of the construction.
  • Common misclassification. Reasoning about a multi-dimensional space as if it grew additively, underestimating the cell count and the testing, inventory, or analysis burden. The tell: does adding a dimension multiply the count (Cartesian product, explosion risk) or merely add to it?

Broad Use

  • Mathematics. The Cartesian plane \(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}\), product spaces and product topologies, joint sample spaces, Cartesian-closed categories, and the underlying construction of relations and functions as sets of tuples.
  • Experimental design. A full factorial design is the Cartesian product of factor-level sets; \(n\) factors at \(k\) levels yields \(k^n\) cells, each a distinct experimental condition.
  • Product design and manufacturing. Configurable goods live on a product: a vehicle in four colors, three engines, and two transmissions admits \(4 \times 3 \times 2 = 24\) configurations, and the catalog grows multiplicatively with each added option.
  • Computer science. The relational-algebra cross join, the joint state space of concurrent processes (one process's states \(\times\) another's), and tuple types in programming languages are direct surface forms.
  • Operations research and scheduling. A schedule lives in the product (jobs \(\times\) time slots \(\times\) machines); assignment problems search a subset of that product.
  • Linguistics and morphology. Conjugation and declension paradigms are products: verb stem \(\times\) person \(\times\) number \(\times\) tense generates the cells of an inflection table.
  • Decision and scenario analysis. A scenario matrix is the product of assumption-level sets — (oil-price levels) \(\times\) (interest-rate levels) \(\times\) (growth levels) — and bounds the space of contingencies to be considered.

Clarity

The prime gives a precise name to the phrase "all combinations of…," which otherwise circulates unanalyzed. Once a system is recognized as living on a Cartesian product, three things become immediately legible. The analyst can count the cells exactly as the product of dimension sizes; can identify each dimension as an independent axis and ask whether that independence is genuine or an artifact of careless modelling; and can partition the cells into the real and the excluded, making explicit which tuples are admissible and which are ruled out by downstream constraint. The clarifying force is to convert a vague gesture at completeness into an enumerable, countable object whose structure is fully determined by the dimensions and their sizes — and to surface, the moment the product is named, the question of whether one actually intends the full unrestricted combination or some constrained subset of it.

Manages Complexity

The Cartesian product is simultaneously a generative construction and a complexity diagnostic: naming it makes combinatorial explosion visible at the moment it is incurred rather than after it has become unmanageable. Three dimensions of three levels yield 27 cells; four dimensions of four levels yield 256; the growth is multiplicative, and the prime forces the analyst to confront multiplicativity rather than mistake it for additivity. Having made the explosion visible, the construction also frames the three structural responses to it. One may accept the full product when it is small enough to enumerate; sample it by an orthogonal or fractional subset that preserves the information of interest while visiting only part of the space; or constrain it by naming the excluded tuples explicitly and reasoning only about the residual. Each response is a different way of trading completeness against tractability, and the product is the object against which that trade is made precise. The same management move — enumerate the axes, compute the size, then decide between full coverage, sampling, and exclusion — recurs identically in design-of-experiments, configuration management, and combinatorial test planning.

Abstract Reasoning

Once a structure is recognized as a Cartesian product, several portable reasoning moves become available. Decomposition by separability: one asks whether a function defined on the product factors across its dimensions — whether it can be written additively as \(f(a) + g(b)\) or multiplicatively as \(h(a) \cdot k(b)\). If it factors, the dimensions do not interact and can be reasoned about one axis at a time; if it does not, the interactions are real and must be modelled jointly, which is the structural distinction between main effects and interaction effects in any multi-factor analysis. Projection: collapsing one dimension yields a marginal view, and the product structure survives projection, so one can reason at a reduced dimensionality and recover the full space by re-expansion. Coverage and sampling: when the product is too large to enumerate, the question becomes which subset preserves the marginal and low-order-interaction information of the whole — the foundational question of fractional factorial design and of combinatorial covering arrays. These moves are the same whether the substrate is a designed experiment, a software test plan, or a scenario sweep, because each is a question about the structure of the product rather than about the contents of any particular dimension.

Knowledge Transfer

The cross-domain payload of the Cartesian product is a set of interventions, not a vocabulary, and the interventions transfer because they attach to the structure rather than to any field's terminology. The first transferable move is make the dimensions explicit: before one can count cells, isolate interactions, or sample intelligently, one must list the independent axes, and that first act — naming what varies freely and what is held fixed — is identical in product-line management, schedule construction, test planning, and scenario analysis. The second is detect interaction: when outcomes are not separable across dimensions, the interactions matter, and the structural response (a full factorial sweep, or an orthogonal design that estimates main effects and selected interactions) is the same regardless of substrate. The third is constrain to reduce: when the full product is intractable, the disciplined move is to name the impossible or inappropriate combinations explicitly and treat the residual as the relevant state space — product-line rationalization in manufacturing, infeasible-combination pruning in testing, and ruling out medically inappropriate condition-pairings in trial design are one structural operation in three vocabularies. A fourth, diagnostic, transfer is multiplicativity detection: the product is a quick structural test for whether a problem's size grows linearly or combinatorially in its parameters, which is often the difference between a tractable enumeration and an explosion that demands sampling. A clinical-trial planner studying three doses, two routes, and four subgroups is reasoning on a \(3 \times 2 \times 4\) product of 24 cells; a software tester sweeping configuration \(\times\) operating system \(\times\) locale, a portfolio analyst spanning macro-scenario axes, and a manufacturer enumerating trim combinations are all doing the same structural work, and the move that translates among them is precisely the recognition that each lives on a Cartesian product. Because the construction is the grammar-free limit of combination, it also sits one step beneath richer combinatorial structures: when a domain imposes rules on which combinations are well-formed, the product is the unconstrained superset from which those rules carve, and recognizing the product first is what makes the subsequent constraint legible as a constraint.

Examples

Formal/abstract

A full factorial experimental design is the canonical worked instance, and it makes every part of the signature concrete. Suppose a chemist studies a reaction with three named, ordered dimensions: temperature, catalyst, and solvent. The value set per dimension is the levels chosen on each axis — temperature at {low, medium, high}, catalyst at {A, B}, solvent at {water, ethanol, acetone}. The independence of dimensions is the design assumption that each factor can be set freely regardless of the others. The unrestricted combination forms every selection of one level per factor; the ordered tuples are the experimental conditions, each an axis-indexed assignment like (high, A, ethanol). The multiplicative cardinality is the load-bearing fact: \(3 \times 2 \times 3 = 18\) distinct experimental cells, and the design forces the analyst to confront that the cell count grows multiplicatively — adding a fourth factor at two levels would double it to 36, not add 2. This is where the prime's reasoning bites. Decomposition by separability asks whether the reaction yield factors across dimensions — if yield is well-approximated by main effects \(f(\text{temp}) + g(\text{catalyst}) + h(\text{solvent})\), the factors do not interact and can be studied one axis at a time; if it does not factor, the interaction effects are real and must be modelled jointly, which is exactly the main-effects-versus-interactions distinction. When the full \(k^n\) explodes, the coverage-and-sampling move applies: a fractional factorial or orthogonal array visits a principled subset of cells that still estimates main effects and selected interactions, trading completeness for tractability. The intervention the structure prescribes: enumerate the axes, compute the product size, then choose between full coverage, sampling, and constraint.

Mapped back: Temperature, catalyst, and solvent are the named dimensions, their levels are the value sets, the 18 conditions are the ordered tuples, and the multiplicative cell count is the cardinality — the Cartesian product as the skeleton of factorial design, with separability and sampling as the reasoning it unlocks.

Applied/industry

A configurable manufactured product instantiates the same construction, and it surfaces the combinatorial-explosion diagnostic at the moment it is incurred. A vehicle is offered in several named, ordered dimensions: exterior colour, engine, transmission, and trim package. The value set per dimension is the option list on each axis — say four colours, three engines, two transmissions, three trims. The independence of dimensions is the catalogue's default that any option combines with any other; the unrestricted combination is the full product of \(4 \times 3 \times 2 \times 3 = 72\) buildable configurations, each an ordered tuple assigning one choice per axis. The multiplicative cardinality is precisely the manufacturer's planning problem: every added option multiplies the configuration count, inflating the bill of materials, the testing matrix, and the inventory of distinct builds. The prime frames the three structural responses. Accept the full product where it is small enough to stock and validate. Sample it by offering only popular pre-configured trims that span the meaningful variation. Or constrain it by naming the excluded tuples explicitly — the diesel engine may not be offered with the sport trim, ruling out those cells — which is product-line rationalization, the same operation as infeasible-combination pruning in software testing and ruling out medically inappropriate condition-pairings in trial design. The multiplicativity-detection diagnostic is the quick structural test the manufacturer runs to know whether catalogue growth is linear or combinatorial in the options. The identical structural work is done by a software tester sweeping (configuration × operating system × locale), a portfolio analyst spanning (oil-price × interest-rate × growth) scenario axes, and a linguist enumerating a conjugation paradigm (stem × person × number × tense) — each lives on a Cartesian product, and the move that translates among them is the recognition of that shared structure.

Mapped back: Colour, engine, transmission, and trim are the named dimensions, the option lists are the value sets, the 72 buildable vehicles are the ordered tuples, and the multiplicative configuration count is the cardinality — the Cartesian product as a configuration space, with explicit exclusion of infeasible tuples as the constraint that tames the explosion.

Structural Tensions

T1 — Multiplicative versus Additive Growth (scalar). The product's size is the product of dimension sizes, so adding an axis multiplies rather than adds to the cell count — the canonical site where combinatorial explosion first appears. The boundary is multiplicativity. The characteristic failure is reasoning about a multi-dimensional space as if it grew additively, underestimating the cell count and the testing, inventory, or analysis burden it imposes. Diagnostic: does adding a dimension multiply the count (Cartesian product, explosion risk) or merely add to it (a different structure)? Mistaking multiplicative growth for additive is the planning error the prime exists to surface.

T2 — Unrestricted Combination versus Constrained Subset (scopal). The product is the grammar-free limit — every tuple admissible until a later filter removes it — so it is the unconstrained superset from which real constraints carve. The boundary is between the full product and the feasible subset. The failure mode is reasoning about the full product when the operative space is a constrained subset (infeasible configurations, illegal combinations), wasting effort enumerating tuples that will never occur, or conversely forgetting that the constraint was applied and treating the subset as the whole. Diagnostic: is the full unrestricted product intended, or some constrained residual? Naming the product first makes the subsequent constraint legible as a constraint rather than an unexamined assumption.

T3 — Independent Dimensions versus Hidden Coupling (coupling). The construction assumes each axis is a free choice unconstrained by the others, but apparent independence is often an artefact of careless modelling — dimensions that interact were wrongly treated as separable. The boundary is genuine independence. The failure mode is forming a product over axes that are actually coupled, so the model admits combinations the real system forbids or whose outcomes interact. Diagnostic: can each axis genuinely be set independently of the others, or do choices on one constrain or interact with another? Spurious independence inflates the space with impossible tuples and hides real interactions.

T4 — Separable Function versus Interaction Effect (coupling). A function on the product may factor across dimensions (additively or multiplicatively), letting each axis be reasoned about alone, or it may not, forcing joint analysis — the main-effects-versus-interactions distinction. The boundary is separability. The failure mode is assuming separability where interactions are real (analysing axes one at a time and missing the cross-term) or assuming interaction where the function factors (paying for joint analysis a separable structure made unnecessary). Diagnostic: does the outcome factor across the dimensions, or do the axes interact? If it does not factor, per-axis reasoning misses the interaction effects that actually govern the result.

T5 — Full Coverage versus Sampled Subset (measurement). When the product is too large to enumerate, one samples it — a fractional or orthogonal subset that preserves main-effect and low-order-interaction information while visiting only part of the space. The boundary is between full coverage and sampling. The failure mode is sampling in a way that aliases the effects of interest (a fractional design that confounds the interaction one needed to estimate) or insisting on full coverage where it is intractable. Diagnostic: which effects must be estimable, and does the chosen subset preserve them unconfounded? Sampling trades completeness for tractability, and a careless subset can destroy exactly the information the study required.

T6 — Ordered Tuple versus Unordered Combination (scopal). A product tuple is an ordered, axis-indexed assignment — one value per named slot, so \((a,b) \neq (b,a)\) in general — not an unordered bag of values. The boundary is whether order and axis-identity matter. The failure mode is conflating the two: treating ordered configurations as interchangeable (collapsing distinct tuples that differ only by which axis holds which value) or imposing order where the problem is genuinely an unordered selection. Diagnostic: are the dimensions named and distinguishable, so position carries meaning (product), or is the result a set of values regardless of slot (a different combinatorial object)? Mistaking one for the other miscounts the space and mislabels its elements.

Structural–Framed Character

Cartesian Product sits at the pure structural pole of the structural–framed spectrum — aggregate 0.0, every diagnostic reading zero. It is a bare set-theoretic construction: pair every element of one collection with every element of another, taking one choice per named axis, yielding ordered tuples with multiplicative cardinality. The pattern is pure relational structure — unrestricted combination of independent dimensions — and every diagnostic points one way.

Vocab_travels is 0 because the construction carries no home lexicon to translate — named dimensions, value sets, ordered tuples, multiplicative cell count are stated in each substrate's own words, whether the axes are experimental factors, vehicle options, scenario assumptions, or conjugation features. Evaluative_weight is 0: a product is neither good nor bad — the all-combinations construction carries no approval, only the structural facts of independence and multiplicative growth. Institutional_origin is 0 because the construction is a formal regularity of set theory and combinatorics, not a construct of any human institution. Human_practice_bound is 0 because it runs in substrates indifferent to human practice — the Cartesian plane, product topologies, joint sample spaces, the joint state space of concurrent processes — with no human role required for the tuples to exist. And import_vs_recognize is 0 because applying it is recognition: enumerate the independent axes already present and form their combinations, no interpretive frame imported. The set-theory origin supplies the canonical examples but no frame; the prose and the all-zero frontmatter agree without tension that this is a bare structural prime.

Substrate Independence

Cartesian Product is a maximally substrate-independent prime — composite 5 / 5 on the substrate-independence scale. It is a bare set-theoretic construction — pair every element of one collection with every element of another, taking one choice per named axis, yielding ordered tuples with multiplicative cardinality — and the pattern is pure relational structure, the unrestricted combination of independent dimensions. The portable payload is a set of interventions that attach to the structure rather than to any field's terminology: make the dimensions explicit, detect interaction by separability, constrain to reduce, and detect multiplicativity, and these recur identically in full factorial experimental design, configurable-product catalogues, relational-algebra cross joins and concurrent state spaces, scheduling, conjugation and declension paradigms in linguistics, and scenario matrices in decision analysis. The breadth crosses the physical/practice line — the Cartesian plane, product topologies, joint sample spaces, and the joint state space of concurrent processes exist with no human role for the tuples to obtain — and the construction carries no home lexicon: named dimensions, value sets, ordered tuples, and multiplicative cell count are stated in each substrate's own words. Applying it is pure recognition of independent axes already present, so every component reads at the ceiling.

  • Composite substrate independence — 5 / 5
  • Domain breadth — 5 / 5
  • Structural abstraction — 5 / 5
  • Transfer evidence — 5 / 5

Relationships to Other Primes

One-hop neighborhood: parents above, mutual partners to the right, children below.Cartesian Productsubsumption: Set and MembershipSet andMembershipsubsumption: Factorial DesignFactorial Design

Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on

  • Cartesian Product is a kind of, typical Set and Membership

    The file: the Cartesian product is 'a derived construction forming ordered tuples across sets' built on set membership (the base notion). A specialization/derived set construction.

Children (1) — more specific cases that build on this

  • Factorial Design is a kind of Cartesian Product

    The file: 'A full factorial design IS a Cartesian product of factor-level sets' — factorial_design is the experimental METHOD (replication, randomisation, effect-estimation) built on the bare combinatorial product. cartesian_product is the substrate-neutral skeleton, factorial_design the application. Add cartesian_product as an additional parent (additive; factorial_design keeps decomposition;experimental_design).

Path to root: Cartesian Product → Set and Membership

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space

Cartesian Product sits in a sparse region of abstraction space (82nd percentile for distinctiveness): few abstractions share its structure, so a faithful description tends to retrieve it precisely rather than landing on a neighbor.

Family — Mappings, Functions & Equivalence (10 primes)

Nearest neighbors

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-06-14

Not to Be Confused With

The embedding-nearest prime is factorial_design, and the relationship is construction-to-application: a full factorial design is a Cartesian product of factor-level sets, so the two are intimately related but not identical. Factorial design is a method of experimentation — it brings, on top of the product, an apparatus of replication, randomisation, blocking, and the statistical machinery for estimating main effects and interactions from the cells. The Cartesian product is the bare combinatorial skeleton that factorial design instantiates: the set of all combinations of one level per factor, with its multiplicative cardinality and its ordered tuples. The distinction matters because the Cartesian product is substrate-neutral and appears far beyond experiments — configurable products, schedules, scenario sweeps, conjugation paradigms, relational joins — all of which are the same construction without any experimental-design apparatus. Treating the Cartesian product as factorial design confines a universal combinatorial object to one discipline; treating factorial design as merely a Cartesian product forgets the effect-estimation and randomisation machinery that makes it an experimental method rather than a bare enumeration. The product tells you the cells exist and how many; factorial design tells you how to run and analyse them.

A second genuine confusion is with relation, and here the Cartesian product sits one structural level beneath it. A relation, in the set-theoretic sense, is any subset of a Cartesian product — a chosen set of tuples that satisfy some condition (a function is a relation; a constraint is a relation; a database table is a relation). The Cartesian product is the unconstrained superset from which every such relation carves: the grammar-free limit in which every combination is admissible until a rule removes some. The difference is exactly the difference between "all combinations" and "the combinations that satisfy a condition." This is why recognising the product first is what makes a subsequent constraint legible as a constraint: the relation is the product minus the excluded tuples. Conflating the two — reasoning about a relation as if it were the full product, or about the full product as if it already had a relation's constraints baked in — either inflates the space with impossible tuples or silently forgets that a constraint was applied (the prime's T2).

A third worth drawing is against cardinality. The Cartesian product's most famous feature is its multiplicative cardinality — the size of the product is the product of the dimension sizes — which tempts the identification of the construction with its size. But cardinality is a property (the count of elements in a set), while the Cartesian product is the construction that produces a set whose cardinality happens to be multiplicative. Reducing the product to "the multiplication of sizes" loses its working content: the ordered tuples, the independent axes, the separability question, the projection and sampling moves. The multiplicative count is the diagnostic that makes combinatorial explosion visible, but it is a consequence of the construction, not the construction itself; one reasons with the product (enumerating, constraining, projecting) and merely computes its cardinality.

For a practitioner the distinctions clarify what object is in play. Confusing the Cartesian product with factorial_design confines a universal construction to one method; confusing it with relation conflates the full combination space with a constrained subset and hides where constraints were applied; and confusing it with cardinality keeps the count and loses the generative structure. Asking "is this the unconstrained set of all one-per-axis combinations (product), a constrained subset of them (relation), an experimental method built on them (factorial design), or merely their count (cardinality)?" is what places the object correctly.

Solution Archetypes

No catalogued solution archetypes reference this prime yet.