Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [PrimeNumbers] First question: Density zero?

Expand Messages
  • Jud McCranie
    ... Well, you ve lost me. I don t understand your distinction. The complement of a set of density 0 has density 1, and vice versa. You seem to be thinking
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      At 06:39 PM 12/31/2002 +0000, Jon Perry wrote:

      >Okay, natural was a bad choice.
      >
      >'non-constructed' is probably better (hence the AopB - op for operation).
      >
      >Z/C is not non-constructed as C=Z/P, and it the set of primes that cannot be
      >further disseminated.

      Well, you've lost me. I don't understand your distinction. The complement
      of a set of density 0 has density 1, and vice versa.

      You seem to be thinking that the primes are somehow more defined more
      "fundamentally" than the composites, or something like that. I have a
      friend who thinks the opposite. He says that "composites are defined in
      terms of what they are but primes are defined in terms of what they are not
      [not divisible by a smaller prime]". I don't see the distinction.


      +---------------------------------------------------------+
      | Jud McCranie |
      | |
      | Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic |
      +---------------------------------------------------------+



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.