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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Is 2 a prime

Expand Messages
  • Paul Leyland
    ... Huumpty-dumpty alert! Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 22:27, shuangtheman wrote:
      > I want to make a conjecture that no definition of
      > primes can include 2 to be a prime. A definition


      Huumpty-dumpty alert!


      Paul



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Thomas Hadley
      ... A good warning, Paul. In case this reference is confusing to some, here s an explanation. This is from an article by Kurt Salzinger of the American
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        primenumbers@yahoogroups.com wrote on 08/04/2006 04:49:35 PM:

        > On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 22:27, shuangtheman wrote:
        > > I want to make a conjecture that no definition of
        > > primes can include 2 to be a prime. A definition
        >
        > Huumpty-dumpty alert!
        >
        > Paul

        A good warning, Paul. In case this reference is confusing
        to some, here's an explanation. This is from an article by
        Kurt Salzinger of the American Psychological Association:

        Thus we use everyday words, following the Humpty Dumpty
        prescription in which he contends that the meaning of a
        given word is a question of ?which is to be master . . .
        When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to
        mean - - neither more nor less.? The problem is that
        while this approach may be amusing in a children?s book,
        it does not help in communicating with the wide world
        outside.


        Tom Hadley

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • shuangtheman
        Simon, I like your comments. Indeed, the primes may represent a code for the ETI or even the supernatural God to communicate with humans. But mere awareness
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Simon,

          I like your comments. Indeed, the primes may represent a code for the ETI or even the
          supernatural God to communicate with humans. But mere awareness of primes is rather
          primitive and the series of primes, 3, 5, 7, 11,... may be encoding a message that has
          nothing to do with numbers. Until humans figure out why 2 is or is not a prime, the
          supernatural would have no interest in contacting our lowly intelligence. There may be a
          message encoded in the definition of primes or the proper way of defining and generating
          primes. When we become intelligent enough to figure out that message, we would have
          known whether there is or is not a supernatural world out there. We would have known
          whether to consider 2 a prime based on objective truth rather than arbitrary human
          convenience. Most first rate mathematicians believe a supernatural Platonic world of
          objective mathematical truth. There must be a truth on the primality of 2. Whatever that
          truth may be, it is clear that we humans have yet to find it since we are presently calling
          the shots on 2 based on our own convenience of playing
          some number theory games.


          --- Simon <4_groups@...> wrote:

          > Carl Sagan, in the novel "Contact", allows that
          > prime numbers are odd integers, as opposed
          > to even integers, which I believe was delivered by
          > the heroine Ellie Arroway, who is the head
          > of the ARGUS project. I just stumbled across this
          > last night while reading the novel, so it is
          > there.
          >
          > This project ultimately found an ETI presence
          > emanating communication by complex radio
          > signals from the star Vega, in Lyra.
          >
          > Go figure, Paul Leyland!
          >
          > Maybe this is why we aren't finding ETI; we're using
          > 2 as a prime number!
          >
          > I, too, admit that it is puzzling why number theory
          > often proceeds forward based an
          > exception. I wish that Paul Leyland would be a bit
          > more constructive, and outline the
          > implications that a change in definition would have
          > on all the number theory. However.
          > perhaps laziness, or a lack of hubris delivers his
          > above comment.
          >
          > Thoughtfully,
          > Simon
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Chris Caldwell
          On Behalf Of shuangtheman ... The objective truth is simple and obvious (for integers): 2 is prime. Those that can not understand such a trivial definition
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Behalf Of shuangtheman
            > Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re:Is 2 a prime
            > ... There must be a truth on the primality of 2.
            > Whatever that truth may be,

            The objective truth is simple and obvious (for integers):
            2 is prime. Those that can not understand such a trivial
            definition should not admit so as loudly and with as
            many words as they often do.

            CC
          • jbrennen
            ... Then you are at odds with the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. Also, there is a very basic way to define prime -- perhaps the most basic way of all.
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- shuangtheman wrote:
              >
              > I want to make a conjecture that no definition of
              > primes can include 2 to be a prime.

              Then you are at odds with the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.


              Also, there is a very basic way to define prime -- perhaps the
              most basic way of all. Divide the numbers into four categories:

              Zero: divides no other number, only itself
              Unit: divides every number
              Prime: a number P which is not a zero and not a unit, and for
              which we can say that if P divides the product of A & B,
              then P must divide at least one of A or B
              Composite: a number which is not a zero, not a unit, not a prime


              This describes the integers perfectly, and without ever bringing
              up such "rules" that you seem to find fault with -- it doesn't
              use concepts like "less than", nor does it state that a prime is
              divisible only by itself and 1 (although you might derive that).

              Using this definition, the fact that 2 is prime is equivalent
              to the assertion that no even number is a product of two odd
              numbers. I'm sure you accept the truth of that statement, right?


              Jack
            • Phil Carmody
              ... Come up with your own definition of a term that already has a well-established unwavering definition. Don t do that, m kay? ... The Tietze citation looks
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- shuangtheman <shuangtheman@...> wrote:
                > I want to

                Come up with your own definition of a term that already
                has a well-established unwavering definition.

                Don't do that, m'kay?

                > While 2 is
                > considered a prime today, at one time it was not
                > (Tietze 1965, p. 18; Tropfke 1921, p. 96). These
                > references are from
                > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html. I
                > hope that nobody is saying that those people were
                > fools.
                ...
                > Tietze, H. "Prime Numbers and Prime Twins." Ch. 1 in
                > Famous Problems of Mathematics: Solved and Unsolved
                > Mathematics Problems from Antiquity to Modern Times.
                > New York: Graylock Press, pp. 1-20, 1965.
                >
                > Tropfke, J. Geschichte der Elementar-Mathematik, Band
                > 1. Berlin, Germany: p. 96, 1921.

                The Tietze citation looks like it's to a secondary or tertiary
                source therefore no actual primary source for the a definition
                that excludes 2 is provided. So your claim is on thin ice.

                And of course your "I hope that nobody is saying that those
                people were fools", is completely flawed argumentation.
                If these guys were simply reporting on the contradictory things
                that others had done, then it could quite easily contain the
                babbling of loons, yet the authors themselves would not be
                fools. Have you never read any Martin Gardner? What we think
                of those authors is not relevant, be they gurus or cranks;
                only our opinion on the worth of a definition of prime that
                excludes 2 is important.

                To be honest, my first estimation would be "worthless", but I
                could probably be argued down.

                Phil

                () ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
                /\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed

                [stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • Dr. Michael Paridon
                I actually think division by zero is not defined. I suggest the definition of primes using set theory: A prime is a natural number, whichs set of divisors has
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 5, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I actually think division by zero is not defined.

                  I suggest the definition of primes using set theory: A prime is a natural number, whichs set of divisors has exactly 2 elements.

                  As zero is no natural number, it falls off. 1 has only one divisor, is therefore no prime. 2 has two divisors, therefore is prime.

                  Best regards

                  Michael Paridon


                  -------- Original-Nachricht --------
                  Datum: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:56:53 -0000
                  Von: "jbrennen" <jb@...>
                  An: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
                  Betreff: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is 2 a prime

                  > --- shuangtheman wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I want to make a conjecture that no definition of
                  > > primes can include 2 to be a prime.
                  >
                  > Then you are at odds with the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.
                  >
                  >
                  > Also, there is a very basic way to define prime -- perhaps the
                  > most basic way of all. Divide the numbers into four categories:
                  >
                  > Zero: divides no other number, only itself
                  > Unit: divides every number
                  > Prime: a number P which is not a zero and not a unit, and for
                  > which we can say that if P divides the product of A & B,
                  > then P must divide at least one of A or B
                  > Composite: a number which is not a zero, not a unit, not a prime
                  >
                  >
                  > This describes the integers perfectly, and without ever bringing
                  > up such "rules" that you seem to find fault with -- it doesn't
                  > use concepts like "less than", nor does it state that a prime is
                  > divisible only by itself and 1 (although you might derive that).
                  >
                  > Using this definition, the fact that 2 is prime is equivalent
                  > to the assertion that no even number is a product of two odd
                  > numbers. I'm sure you accept the truth of that statement, right?
                  >
                  >
                  > Jack
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  --


                  Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
                  "Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

                  --


                  Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
                  "Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
                • Jack Brennen
                  ... 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
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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.
                  • Dr. Michael Paridon
                    Sorry, but I do not agree. Due to correction: a) I think divisibility is defined for natural numbers only. b) You suggested Say that X is divisible by A if
                    Message 9 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sorry, but I do not agree.

                      Due to correction:

                      a) I think divisibility is defined for natural numbers only.

                      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.

                      Best regards

                      Michael Paridon

                      -------- Original-Nachricht --------
                      Datum: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:05:57 -0700
                      Von: Jack Brennen <jb@...>
                      An: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
                      Betreff: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is 2 a prime

                      > 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.
                      >

                      --


                      Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
                      "Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
                    • Phil Carmody
                      ... With what? Please don t top-post, m kay? ... But Jack provides a definition which works for N / { 0 }. Yes, there exist a handful of simple and convenient
                      Message 10 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- "Dr. Michael Paridon" <dr.m.paridon@...> wrote:
                        > Sorry, but I do not agree.

                        With what?

                        Please don't top-post, m'kay?

                        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]

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • Dr. Michael Paridon
                        ... Datum: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Von: Phil Carmody An: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is
                        Message 11 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          -------- Original-Nachricht --------
                          Datum: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
                          Von: Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...>
                          An: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
                          Betreff: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is 2 a prime

                          > --- "Dr. Michael Paridon" <dr.m.paridon@...> wrote:
                          > > Sorry, but I do not agree.
                          >
                          > With what?
                          >
                          > Please don't top-post, m'kay?
                          >
                          > 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
                        • Peter Kosinar
                          ... 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 12 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > 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
                          • Dr. Michael Paridon
                            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 13 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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.

                              Best regrads

                              Michael


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Peter Kosinar" <goober@...>
                              To: "Dr. Michael Paridon" <dr.m.paridon@...>
                              Cc: <primenumbers@yahoogroups.com>
                              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
                              >
                              >
                            • Alan McFarlane
                              ... Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_arithmetic for a nice introduction. ... [snip] -- Alan
                              Message 14 of 15 , Aug 7, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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.

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


                                --
                                Alan
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.