1998-11-19 - Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math (fwd)

Header Data

From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Message Hash: 26c2eb5feed90d245550754e032e4b61b99e7a65bab560238465d8191563bce7
Message ID: <199811191827.MAA04861@einstein.ssz.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-11-19 19:10:28 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 03:10:28 +0800

Raw message

From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 03:10:28 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811191827.MAA04861@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:50:34 -0600
> Subject: Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math

> http://forum.swarthmore.edu/dr.math/problems/1isprime.html

> <META NAME="title" CONTENT="Why is 1 Not Considered Prime?">

> math gods that says you can only write it once since 1 also 
> equals 1x1x1x1x...   This would not work for other primes 
> such as two: 2 does not equal 1x2x2x2x...  Likewise, 3 does 
> not equal 1x3x3x3x...

Whether the 1 is there or not is irrelevant,

3x3x3x3... is not 3 in the first place.

3x1x1x1x1.... IS 3.

>         Patterns are very important to mathematics, I further 
> explained, and this is a pattern I see being broken.

> Date: 25 Mar 1995 16:21:45 -0500
> From: Dr. Ken
> Subject: Re: Why 1 is prime

> Yes, you're definitely on the right track.  In fact, it's precisely 
> because of "patterns that mathematicians don't like to break" 
> that 1 is not defined as a prime.  Perhaps you have seen the 
> theorem (even if you haven't, I'm sure you know it intuitively) 
> that any positive integer has a unique factorization into primes.  
> For instance, 4896 = 2^5 * 3^2 * 17, and this is the only possible 
> way to factor 4896.  But what if we allow 1 in our list of prime 
> factors?  Well, then we'd also get 1 * 2^5 * 3^2 * 17, and 
> 1^75 * 2^5 * 3^2 * 17, and so on.  So really, the flavor of the 
> theorem is true only if you don't allow 1 in there.

This definition of a prime has one serious drawback.

It ignores the fundamental identity theorem of arithmatic:

 1 * n = n

So, as a result we're in the interesting and potentialy untenable
situation of defining a identity theorem, base our math on it, and then
come along one day and say it doesn't apply anymore WITHOUT making any
other changes to the structure of the theories....

This is VERY BAD science/math.



    ____________________________________________________________________
 
            Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
            the right answers.

                                        Scully (X-Files)

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------





Thread