1998-11-19 - Re: Goldbach’s Conjecture - a question about prime sums of odd numbers

Header Data

From: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: sunder@brainlink.com (Ray Arachelian)
Message Hash: cee1b7091d10d1d0c9cc22ef8b3240f35644fc4c3904c8014dc40a4d76c78664
Message ID: <199811191950.NAA07904@manifold.algebra.com>
Reply To: <365456C4.5D18C1C6@brainlink.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-11-19 20:41:00 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:41:00 +0800

Raw message

From: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:41:00 +0800
To: sunder@brainlink.com (Ray Arachelian)
Subject: Re: Goldbach's Conjecture - a question about prime sums of odd numbers
In-Reply-To: <365456C4.5D18C1C6@brainlink.com>
Message-ID: <199811191950.NAA07904@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Ray Arachelian wrote:
> Jim Choate wrote:
> > Forwarded message:
> > > Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:18:26 -0500
> > > From: Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Goldbach's Conjecture - a question about prime sums of odd numbers
> > 
> > > So I guess I have to take back 7+5+(-1) and go with Jim's 1+3+7, but fuck,
> > > that won't work either since 1 isn't a prime...  So I guess Igor is right on
> > > this one.  Sorry Jim...
> > 
> > A prime is defined as *ANY* number (note the definition doesn't mention
> > sign or magnitude nor does it exclude any numbers a priori) that has no
> > multiplicative factors other than itself and 1.
> > 
> > 1 * 1 = 1 so it is clearly prime.
> > 
> > Now, if a particular branch of number theory wants to extend it and make it
> > only numbers >=2 that is fine, I'm not working in that branch anyway.
> 
> Actually the issue is 1=1*1, 1=1*1*1 ... 1=1^n.  If 1 is prime, then -1 must
> be prime since -1=1^n where n is odd and 1=1^n where any n is used.  The fact
> that 1 can be factored from itself recursively is the issue.

People, please open ANY math book and see the definition for yourselves.

1 is not a prime by definition. Not because of any other reason.

Besides, -1=1^n is just not true for any n.

igor

> (If the above weren't true, then -1 could be prime without affecting whether
> -3's lack of primality: -3=-1*3 and -3=1*-3.)
> 
> (See: http://forum.swarthmore.edu/dr.math/problems/1isprime.html )
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
> .+.^.+.|       Sunder       |Prying open my 3rd eye.  So good to see |./|\.
> ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were      |/\|/\
> <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run  |\/|\/
> ../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/.
> .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were....            |.....
> ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================
> 



	- Igor.





Thread