Prime numbers and primality testing is a Restricted Group with 1114 members.
 Prime numbers and primality testing

 Restricted Group,
 1114 members
Primary Navigation
Re: [PrimeNumbers] Is 2 a prime
Expand Messages
 0 Attachment
On Fri, 20060804 at 22:27, shuangtheman wrote:> I want to make a conjecture that no definition of
Huumptydumpty alert!
> primes can include 2 to be a prime. A definition
Paul
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed] 0 Attachment
primenumbers@yahoogroups.com wrote on 08/04/2006 04:49:35 PM:
> On Fri, 20060804 at 22:27, shuangtheman wrote:
A good warning, Paul. In case this reference is confusing
> > I want to make a conjecture that no definition of
> > primes can include 2 to be a prime. A definition
>
> Huumptydumpty alert!
>
> Paul
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
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed] 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
>
>
>
> 0 Attachment
On Behalf Of shuangtheman> Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re:Is 2 a prime
The objective truth is simple and obvious (for integers):
> ... There must be a truth on the primality of 2.
> Whatever that truth may be,
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 0 Attachment
 shuangtheman wrote:>
Then you are at odds with the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.
> I want to make a conjecture that no definition of
> primes can include 2 to be a prime.
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 0 Attachment
 shuangtheman <shuangtheman@...> wrote:> I want to
Come up with your own definition of a term that already
has a wellestablished 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
The Tietze citation looks like it's to a secondary or tertiary
> Famous Problems of Mathematics: Solved and Unsolved
> Mathematics Problems from Antiquity to Modern Times.
> New York: Graylock Press, pp. 120, 1965.
>
> Tropfke, J. Geschichte der ElementarMathematik, Band
> 1. Berlin, Germany: p. 96, 1921.
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 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
 OriginalNachricht 
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 DSLFlatrate dauerhaft für 0, Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

Echte DSLFlatrate dauerhaft für 0, Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl 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.
Nonzero is not divisible by zero. 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 nondefinition of division by zero in all cases. As a) does, too.
Best regards
Michael Paridon
 OriginalNachricht 
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.
> Nonzero is not divisible by zero.
>
Echte DSLFlatrate dauerhaft für 0, Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl 0 Attachment
 "Dr. Michael Paridon" <dr.m.paridon@...> wrote:> Sorry, but I do not agree.
With what?
Please don't toppost, m'kay?
Fixing:
> Von: Jack Brennen <jb@...>
But Jack provides a definition which works for N \/ { 0 }.
> > 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.
> > Nonzero is not divisible by zero.
> Due to correction:
>
> a) I think divisibility is defined for natural numbers only.
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
That's one possible definition, yes. If Jack were to rely on his definition of
> 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 nondefinition of division by zero in all
> cases. As a) does, too.
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. ab := (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 0 Attachment
 OriginalNachricht 
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, if I did not post right. I was not about to cause any inconvenience.
> > Sorry, but I do not agree.
>
> With what?
>
> Please don't toppost, 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.
> > > Nonzero 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 nondefinition 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. ab := (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]
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 DSLFlatrate dauerhaft für 0, Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl 0 Attachment
> Sorry, if I did not post right. I was not about to cause any
It depends on the area people work in. For a combinatorian, the equality
> 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.
0^0 = 1 can work perfectly well; as the lefthandside 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 (11)^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 existentialquantifer 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 welldefinedness (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 settheory 
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 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 lefthandside 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 (11)^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 existentialquantifer 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 welldefinedness (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 settheory 
> 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 EMail wurde vom NOD32 antivirus system geprüft
> http://www.nod32.com
>
> 0 Attachment
Dr. Michael Paridon wrote:> So I thank everybody very much for explanation. Mathematics has more hidden
Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_arithmetic for a nice introduction.
> 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
[snip]
>
> Michael
>
>
>  Original Message 

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