Acme Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 Why is it that 1 is not considered a prime? I gave a link to you with an extensive answer to this question in post #38 of the Prime Numbers thread. I see no point in starting yet another thread.
conway Posted July 25, 2015 Author Posted July 25, 2015 Acme Yes you did, and I quote you sir on the matter! "It is not a matter of proof, but a matter of definition." All definitions require some sort of philosophical argument. That is unless I have offended your sense of adequate posting. Which seems to be the case.
Acme Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 Acme Yes you did, and I quote you sir on the matter! "It is not a matter of proof, but a matter of definition." All definitions require some sort of philosophical argument. That is unless I have offended your sense of adequate posting. Which seems to be the case. The place for the discussion is the other thread; that's my objection to this thread. As to the definition and other pertinent aspects of considering 1 a prime, they are covered -again extensively- in the link I gave. Read it all, then if you have questions post them in the other thread with quotes from the reference that lead to your questions.
conway Posted July 25, 2015 Author Posted July 25, 2015 Acme It appears you objection is that of personal offense. If you feel I have broken the rules, perhaps you should report this thread. In any case as you stated there is plenty of room for debate in this area.........you don't seem to like others not "accepting" the same truths as you. Tad bit touchy too. In any case... do you have something to add on topic? Or are you just goanna complain that someone else already has a post semi "associated" with primes. -1
Bignose Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 conway, acme has answered it correctly. It is just a matter of convention. It was decided not to include 1 as a prime. There isn't as right or wrong here, just a definition and convention. No knowledge we currently have about the primes change if we were to include 1.
swansont Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 It appears you objection is that of personal offense. ! Moderator Note Stop already. It is not unreasonable to request that you ask a more refined question when information has been provided. If you do not refine your inquiry, the implication is that you did not bother to read the material, and that means you are spamming us with the question. I hope you don't want to be spamming us with questions in which you have no actual interest. You also don't want to be going off-topic to inquire about motivations. Or responding to this modnote in the thread.
conway Posted July 25, 2015 Author Posted July 25, 2015 Swan My question was in regards to 1 being a prime. The information Acme posted was actually on the nature of Primes in general. The post itself was in regards to patterns in primes. Have a look for yourself. A wall of text does not help me when I want a needle out of a hay stack. The implication here is that you read neither the post Acme was refereeing to , or the link found with in it. Please don't respond to this response of your response of a mod note in this thread. -2
Phi for All Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 Swan My question was in regards to 1 being a prime. The information Acme posted was actually on the nature of Primes in general. The post itself was in regards to patterns in primes. Have a look for yourself. A wall of text does not help me when I want a needle out of a hay stack. The implication here is that you read neither the post Acme was refereeing to , or the link found with in it. Please don't respond to this response of your response of a mod note in this thread. Why do you have to behave like such an asshole? People here were more than willing to give you an elementary mathematics education (thanks for THEIR patience), but you've consistently spit in their faces and whined and obfuscated and generally rejected knowledge any kid going into middle school knows pat. Nobody minds that you don't know the material, but if you came here to learn, could you stop acting like everyone but YOU is at fault? 3
Acme Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) Swan My question was in regards to 1 being a prime. The information Acme posted was actually on the nature of Primes in general. The post itself was in regards to patterns in primes. Have a look for yourself. ... Yes; let's do have a look at my post #138 in the Prime Numbers thread that I referred you to. [bolding mine.] ... The History of the Primality of One: A Selection of Sources @ Journal of Integer Sequences Abstract The way mathematicians have viewed the number one (unity, the monad) has changed throughout the years. Most of the early Greeks did not view one as a number, but rather as the origin, or generator, of number. Around the time of Simon Stevin (15481620), one (and zero) were first widely viewed as numbers. This created a period of confusion about whether or not the number one was prime. In this dynamic survey, we collect a cornucopia of sources which deal directly with the question what is the smallest prime? The goal is to create a source book for studying the history of the definition of prime, especially as applied to the number one. Edited July 25, 2015 by Acme
sunshaker Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) Not to butt in, but conway asked a question in the prime thread, and wanted to "discuss" why 1 is not classed has a prime. he was told If you want to redefine things and "EXPLORE" then do it in speculation. This may not be in speculation, but in my opinion he deserves better than some of the replies posted here. by "senior members", yes there were references to why 1 is not classed as a prime in the prime thread, I enjoy some of conways threads and some others who seem to get shut down and in my opinion "bullied" by certain senior members. we can all quote opinions of long dead mathematicians but it seems conway wanted to explore this point further. And get "your" opinions so he could then explore further himself. . Myself I believe 1 should be a prime. Edit, I also like that he started the thread at 11.11 pm whether by thought or some kind of synchronicity, I will give a +1 for that (won't last long though ). Edited July 25, 2015 by sunshaker
Phi for All Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 I enjoy some of conways threads and some others who seem to get shut down and in my opinion "bullied" by certain senior members. we can all quote opinions of long dead mathematicians but it seems conway wanted to explore this point further. And get "your" opinions so he could then explore further himself. Take everything in context. conway wasted a lot of folks time with his rehash of elementary maths, and now, just when some of them thought he was getting somewhere, he opens this thread and rolls back downhill to square one. Frustrating. Edit, I also like that he started the thread at 11.11 pm whether by thought or some kind of synchronicity, I will give a +1 for that (won't last long though ). The software stamps from whatever zone you're in, so for me it was 05:11. But I agree, that would have been a great little touch.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now