Comments on: Kind of a Big Deal: Mathematician Proves Weak Version of Twin Prime Conjecture
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/
The Nexus of Pop Culture and the Uncharted UniverseThu, 12 Jun 2014 19:23:00 -0400hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=2014.43By: David A. Garrick Jr.
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244048
Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:29:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244048Although 1 can multiply any other number, the outcome of such an operation is not some third number. But when a prime multiplies itself or any other prime, the outcome is a third positive integer. This third integer is composite, having the property that it has at least two prime factors, and that its lowest number of possible factors equals its number of prime factors. Number 1 is quite unlike both composites and primes in this respect.
]]>By: Rajeev Krishnamoorthy
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244047
Fri, 31 May 2013 17:26:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244047The reason why 1 is not prime: we want to assert that every number is uniquely factorizable into its primes. If 1 were prime, then numbers would no longer have a unique set of prime factors. It’s really a question of definition.
]]>By: Wayne King
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244046
Thu, 30 May 2013 14:49:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244046It has nothing to do with ‘not being fashionable’; this is mathematics and its provably not prime- opinion and fashion have no place in mathematics.
]]>By: x10sgr8
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244045
Tue, 28 May 2013 19:07:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244045Are factors not also divisors? Is a prime not divisible by exactly 2 natural numbers? Is 1 divisible by 2 natural numbers? It has been shown.
]]>By: CRZ
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244044
Thu, 23 May 2013 09:10:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244044But 1 isn’t prime.
]]>By: GBV
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244043
Wed, 22 May 2013 17:08:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244043Best to define PRIME and then stick with it through thick and thin.
A prime has no factors except itself and 1.
When applied to 1 we find that 1 has no factors except itself (1) and 1.
Hence 1 should be taken as prime.
The fact that 1 appears twice does not affect the matter. After all, how many roots does x^2 – 2x + 1 = 0 have?
The primes are as regular as clockwork – like recurring decimals. The first primes are [1 , 2 , 3 ] because they are each divisible by 1. It is a pity to destroy this regularity by throwing 1 out.
]]>By: Einar Andresen
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244042
Tue, 21 May 2013 11:34:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244042The easiest way to see that 1 is not a prime: Each natural number has a number of prime factors. Each prime has one factor, itself. 6 has 2 factors, 8 has three. When you multiply two integers the number of factors in the product is the sum of the numbers from the two factors. The number one has 0 factors, and is called a unit.
]]>By: ccc
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244041
Sun, 19 May 2013 07:41:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244041are u idiot? can’t judge right or wrong by votes
]]>By: JipJip
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244040
Sat, 18 May 2013 16:48:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244040Well, the fundamental theorem of arthmetic wouldn’t be true anymore, and many more theorems would have to be reformulated to exclude 1. So it’s not very practical to define 1 as a prime (especially when considering to extend the idea of prime numbers to other systems than the natural numbers), I wouldn’t call it a fashion thing.
]]>By: greyhatgoon
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244039
Fri, 17 May 2013 20:02:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244039Actually, 1 can be defined as prime and it won’t cause any theoretical problems. Authors in the 40′s and 50′s used to consider 1 to be prime. In recent years it has just became fashionable to not consider 1 as a prime number.
]]>By: Rollin Bishop
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244037
Thu, 16 May 2013 19:32:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244037Currently being finalized and reviewed. Should be officially published in a journal if it turns out to be accurate, though. Will update when we can!
]]>By: Rollin Bishop
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244038
Thu, 16 May 2013 19:32:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244038Glen has been slapped for this. Numerous times. (Also, updated the post. Thanks!)
]]>By: AssHat900
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244036
Thu, 16 May 2013 16:12:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244036Can’t be right there was only 48% voter turnout.
]]>By: The_Silence
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244035
Wed, 15 May 2013 21:43:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244035Link to the proof?
]]>By: afifah
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244034
Wed, 15 May 2013 19:32:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244034stupid its wrong ?!? :(
]]>By: CRZ
http://www.themarysue.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-244033
Wed, 15 May 2013 18:25:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-244033C’mon, man – 1 isn’t prime.
]]>