Re: [PrimeNumbers] The history of the primality of one
- --- On Fri, 2/3/12, Paul Leyland wrote:
> One is not a number in this linguistic sense andFundamental, pervasive, and perverted.
> English, in common with most other languages, distinguishes
> between singular and plural in a way which is both fundamental and
It is, after all, a language in which the singular 'thou' has
been jetisoned for the plural 'you', and similarly the plural
'they' adopted as a singular when trying to avoid mentioning
gender. And we can't really decide whether we want companies
or bands to be singular or plural - is Nokia going down the
pan, or are Nokia going down the pan? (Which does seem to
correlate strongly with pondianness.)
(who recently left a country where in "5 boys", "boys" is *not* plural?!?!)
- --- In email@example.com,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:
> And we can't really decide whether we want companiesIs/are Manchester ******* United singular/plural?
> or bands to be singular or plural
Meanwhile, back in the archives: on page 252 of
Rouse Ball indicates that Mersenne may
have condered 2^p - 1 to be prime for p = 1:
"In the preface to the Cogitata a statement is made about
perfect numbers, which implies that the only values of p not
greater than 257 which make N prime, where N = 2^p - 1, are
1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 67, 127, and 257.."
However, Chris's students should check the original Latin for this.
So far they are expected to be adept in Greek, Latin, Italian,
German, French and English. Maybe Euler wrote something
relevant in Russian: