MrHen comments on Bizarre Illusions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (305)
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"...)
How do you see 0 or -1, using this definition?
A factor of a number M is a number that evenly divides M with no remainder. Zero has infinitely many factors, definitely not prime.
...regarding -1, I can't think of anything relevant that I know about the relationship between negative numbers and prime numbers.
Later edit: Then I completely changed my mind... and decided 0 and -1 should be prime relative to how I would define it's essence. I note that you intuited what I really meant by prime better than I did!
Yeah, I was just curious. I like toying around with the fundamentals behind the maths and seeing what happens. :)