bentarm comments on Bizarre Illusions - Less Wrong

11 Post author: MrHen 27 January 2010 06:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (305)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: byrnema 27 January 2010 10:31:23PM *  2 points [-]

if you use a poor definition such as, "Prime is a number that is only divisible by itself and 1."

I have a fondness for this particular definition, and like to think of 1 as a "very special" prime number. To the extent that I usually give a little speech whenever an opportunity arises that (ahem) the only reason I know of that '1' is excluded from the primes (more often than not) is because almost every theorem about prime numbers would have to be modified with an "except 1" clause. But a natural definition (anything along the lines of "already completely factored") would include it. If you disagree, which definition --- or the satisfaction of which theorem -- do you think is more compelling?

(Just in case you perceived you were getting too much heat about "colour"...)

Comment author: bentarm 27 January 2010 10:56:51PM 4 points [-]

natural definition: "A prime is a natural number with exactly two factors"

I'm not sure I quite understand your suggestion: we should define 1 as prime, but then write "except for 1" every time we use the word prime? Wouldn't it be quicker just to exclude 1 in the first place (even if there were some sense in which 1 was prime)?