Browse Groups

• ## Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is 2 a prime

(15)
• NextPrevious
• ... Datum: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Von: Phil Carmody An: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is
Message 1 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
View Source
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Von: Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...>
Betreff: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is 2 a prime

> --- "Dr. Michael Paridon" <dr.m.paridon@...> wrote:
> > Sorry, but I do not agree.
>
> With what?
>
>
> Fixing:
>
> > Von: Jack Brennen <jb@...>
> > > Dr. Michael Paridon wrote:
> > > > I actually think division by zero is not defined.
> > >
> > > I would suggest that one can define divisibility by zero without
> > > needing a definition for division by zero. Say that X is divisible by
> A
> > > if there exists any element B such that X = AB.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thus you do not need to define exactly which B represents X/A, only
> > > that some such B exists. By this definition, zero is divisible by
> zero.
> > > Non-zero is not divisible by zero.
>
> > Due to correction:
> >
> > a) I think divisibility is defined for natural numbers only.
>
> But Jack provides a definition which works for N \/ { 0 }.
> Yes, there exist a handful of simple and convenient definitions which only
> work
> for natural numbers, but Jack's wording was pedantically correct - one can
> provide a definition which does what Jack says it does.
>
> > b) You suggested "Say that X is divisible by A if there exists any
> element B
> > such that X = AB."
> >
> > I think it is "...there exists one and only one distinct element B such
> that
> > X = AB." Which of course leads to non-definition of division by zero in
> all
> > cases. As a) does, too.
>
> That's one possible definition, yes. If Jack were to rely on his
> definition of
> divisibility in a paper, I feel sure that he would include that definition
> if
> there was any chance of ambiguity.
>
> To be deliberately contrary (shock horror!) I would propose that the
> simplest
> definition of divisibility is one which doesn't mention division at all,
> it
> simply refers to properties of ideals. a|b := (b) \subset (a).
>
> You might enjoy working out the divisibility properties of 0 using this
> definition.
>
> Phil
>
> () ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
> /\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed
>
> [stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]

Sorry, if I did not post right. I was not about to cause any inconvenience.

I did not say Jack's definition is not possible. I think is not the definition mostly used, as usally division by zero is not defined. As well as 0^0, if I remember right. Jack's definition leads to an agreeable result, I admit.

Best regards

Michael Paridon

--

Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
• ... It depends on the area people work in. For a combinatorian, the equality 0^0 = 1 can work perfectly well; as the left-hand-side denotes the number of
Message 1 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
View Source
> Sorry, if I did not post right. I was not about to cause any
> inconvenience.
>
> I did not say Jack's definition is not possible. I think is not the
> definition mostly used, as usally division by zero is not defined. As
> well as 0^0, if I remember right. Jack's definition leads to an

It depends on the area people work in. For a combinatorian, the equality
0^0 = 1 can work perfectly well; as the left-hand-side denotes the number
of functions from empty set to empty set [*]. Moreover, things like
binomial theorem also work nice with this extension; it allows you to
evaluate the sum [k=0,n,(-1)^k*(n choose k)] as being equal to (1-1)^n, or
simply 0^n (ok, I admit, this is just a contrived academic example).

Likewise, if you work in the area of foundations of mathematics, defining
divisibility using the operation of division is a bit more complicated
than using the straight existential-quantifer with multiplication (just
like Jack did); for the division is only a derived operation in e.g. Peano
Arithmetics and one needs to prove its well-definedness (and possibly some
other properties) first.

On the other hand, an analyst would probably bop you over the head
if he saw 0^0 :-)

Peter

[*] This works even in the much more general framework of set-theory --
If A and B are sets with cardinalities |A| resp. |B|, |A|^|B| is defined
to be the cardinality of the set A^B which is the set of all functions
from B to A. If the sets A and B are finite, the cardinal exponentation
agrees with the usual exponentation of natural numbers.

--
[Name] Peter Kosinar [Quote] 2B | ~2B = exp(i*PI) [ICQ] 134813278
• So I thank everybody very much for explanation. Mathematics has more hidden beauties I will ever learn, and as I am not in a professional way dealing with
Message 1 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
View Source
So I thank everybody very much for explanation. Mathematics has more hidden
beauties I will ever learn, and as I am not in a professional way dealing
with Mathematics, I hope I will find out what, e.g., Peano Arithmetics, is.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kosinar" <goober@...>
To: "Dr. Michael Paridon" <dr.m.paridon@...>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is 2 a prime

> > Sorry, if I did not post right. I was not about to cause any
> > inconvenience.
> >
> > I did not say Jack's definition is not possible. I think is not the
> > definition mostly used, as usally division by zero is not defined. As
> > well as 0^0, if I remember right. Jack's definition leads to an
> > agreeable result, I admit.
>
> It depends on the area people work in. For a combinatorian, the equality
> 0^0 = 1 can work perfectly well; as the left-hand-side denotes the number
> of functions from empty set to empty set [*]. Moreover, things like
> binomial theorem also work nice with this extension; it allows you to
> evaluate the sum [k=0,n,(-1)^k*(n choose k)] as being equal to (1-1)^n, or
> simply 0^n (ok, I admit, this is just a contrived academic example).
>
> Likewise, if you work in the area of foundations of mathematics, defining
> divisibility using the operation of division is a bit more complicated
> than using the straight existential-quantifer with multiplication (just
> like Jack did); for the division is only a derived operation in e.g. Peano
> Arithmetics and one needs to prove its well-definedness (and possibly some
> other properties) first.
>
> On the other hand, an analyst would probably bop you over the head
> if he saw 0^0 :-)
>
> Peter
>
> [*] This works even in the much more general framework of set-theory --
> If A and B are sets with cardinalities |A| resp. |B|, |A|^|B| is defined
> to be the cardinality of the set A^B which is the set of all functions
> from B to A. If the sets A and B are finite, the cardinal exponentation
> agrees with the usual exponentation of natural numbers.
>
> --
> [Name] Peter Kosinar [Quote] 2B | ~2B = exp(i*PI) [ICQ] 134813278
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1694 (20060805) Information __________
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde vom NOD32 antivirus system geprüft
> http://www.nod32.com
>
>
• ... Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_arithmetic for a nice introduction. ... [snip] -- Alan
Message 1 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
View Source
Dr. Michael Paridon wrote:
> So I thank everybody very much for explanation. Mathematics has more hidden
> beauties I will ever learn, and as I am not in a professional way dealing
> with Mathematics, I hope I will find out what, e.g., Peano Arithmetics, is.

Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_arithmetic for a nice introduction.

>
> Michael
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
[snip]

--
Alan
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.