Re: Goldbach's Conjecture - a question about prime sums of odd numbers (fwd)

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.



    ____________________________________________________________________
 
            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 --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Ray Arachelian wrote:

> 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.

Duh! I must not have had enough caffeine this morning.  Above should 
say -1=-1^n where N is odd.
 

-- 

=====================================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 ==========================

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.

(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 ==========================

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.