Comments on: Kind of a Big Deal: Mathematician Proves Weak Version of Twin Prime Conjecture
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/
Let Yr Geek Flag FlyWed, 16 Apr 2014 23:53:00 -0400hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=2014.16By: David A. Garrick Jr.
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-49385
David A. Garrick Jr.Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:29:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-49385Although 1 can multiply any other number, the outcome of such an operation is not some third number. But when a prime multiplies itself or any other prime, the outcome is a third positive integer. This third integer is composite, having the property that it has at least two prime factors, and that its lowest number of possible factors equals its number of prime factors. Number 1 is quite unlike both composites and primes in this respect.
]]>By: Rajeev Krishnamoorthy
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-48339
Rajeev KrishnamoorthyFri, 31 May 2013 17:26:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-48339The reason why 1 is not prime: we want to assert that every number is uniquely factorizable into its primes. If 1 were prime, then numbers would no longer have a unique set of prime factors. It’s really a question of definition.
]]>By: Wayne King
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-48278
Wayne KingThu, 30 May 2013 14:49:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-48278It has nothing to do with ‘not being fashionable’; this is mathematics and its provably not prime- opinion and fashion have no place in mathematics.
]]>By: x10sgr8
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-48193
x10sgr8Tue, 28 May 2013 19:07:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-48193Are factors not also divisors? Is a prime not divisible by exactly 2 natural numbers? Is 1 divisible by 2 natural numbers? It has been shown.
]]>By: CRZ
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47993
CRZThu, 23 May 2013 09:10:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47993But 1 isn’t prime.
]]>By: GBV
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47917
GBVWed, 22 May 2013 17:08:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47917Best to define PRIME and then stick with it through thick and thin.
A prime has no factors except itself and 1.
When applied to 1 we find that 1 has no factors except itself (1) and 1.
Hence 1 should be taken as prime.
The fact that 1 appears twice does not affect the matter. After all, how many roots does x^2 – 2x + 1 = 0 have?
The primes are as regular as clockwork – like recurring decimals. The first primes are [1 , 2 , 3 ] because they are each divisible by 1. It is a pity to destroy this regularity by throwing 1 out.
]]>By: Einar Andresen
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47848
Einar AndresenTue, 21 May 2013 11:34:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47848The easiest way to see that 1 is not a prime: Each natural number has a number of prime factors. Each prime has one factor, itself. 6 has 2 factors, 8 has three. When you multiply two integers the number of factors in the product is the sum of the numbers from the two factors. The number one has 0 factors, and is called a unit.
]]>By: ccc
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47771
cccSun, 19 May 2013 07:41:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47771are u idiot? can’t judge right or wrong by votes
]]>By: JipJip
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47758
JipJipSat, 18 May 2013 16:48:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47758Well, the fundamental theorem of arthmetic wouldn’t be true anymore, and many more theorems would have to be reformulated to exclude 1. So it’s not very practical to define 1 as a prime (especially when considering to extend the idea of prime numbers to other systems than the natural numbers), I wouldn’t call it a fashion thing.
]]>By: greyhatgoon
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47725
greyhatgoonFri, 17 May 2013 20:02:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47725Actually, 1 can be defined as prime and it won’t cause any theoretical problems. Authors in the 40′s and 50′s used to consider 1 to be prime. In recent years it has just became fashionable to not consider 1 as a prime number.
]]>By: Rollin Bishop
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47694
Rollin BishopThu, 16 May 2013 19:32:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47694Currently being finalized and reviewed. Should be officially published in a journal if it turns out to be accurate, though. Will update when we can!
]]>By: Rollin Bishop
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47695
Rollin BishopThu, 16 May 2013 19:32:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47695Glen has been slapped for this. Numerous times. (Also, updated the post. Thanks!)
]]>By: AssHat900
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47681
AssHat900Thu, 16 May 2013 16:12:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47681Can’t be right there was only 48% voter turnout.
]]>By: The_Silence
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47643
The_SilenceWed, 15 May 2013 21:43:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47643Link to the proof?
]]>By: afifah
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47639
afifahWed, 15 May 2013 19:32:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47639stupid its wrong ?!? :(
]]>By: CRZ
http://www.geekosystem.com/infinite-prime-pairs/#comment-47632
CRZWed, 15 May 2013 18:25:00 +0000http://www.geekosystem.com/?p=151711#comment-47632C’mon, man – 1 isn’t prime.
]]>