NODE fbba99faRe: Goldbach's Conjecture - a question about prime sums of odd (fwd)
Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>Fri, 20 Nov 1998 01:50:54 +0800
Forwarded message:
> Subject: Re: Goldbach's Conjecture - a question about prime sums of odd
> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:53:50 -0600 (CST)
> From: ichudov@Algebra.Com (Igor Chudov @ home)
> I have no idea where you heard it, but primes are numbers greater than 1,
> by definition.
Actualy a prime is any number which has no multiplicitave factors other than
itself and 1.
Does that mean negatives can't be prime numbers?
So, -3 breaks down to:
-3 * 1 = -3; 3 * -1 would be another set of factors so negatives can't be
primes in the strictest sense.
____________________________________________________________________
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 --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 6aa7c664Re: Goldbach's Conjecture - a question about prime sums of odd (fwd)
ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)Fri, 20 Nov 1998 04:32:55 +0800
Jim Choate wrote:
>
>
> Forwarded message:
>
> > Subject: Re: Goldbach's Conjecture - a question about prime sums of odd
> > Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:53:50 -0600 (CST)
> > From: ichudov@Algebra.Com (Igor Chudov @ home)
>
> > I have no idea where you heard it, but primes are numbers greater than 1,
> > by definition.
>
> Actualy a prime is any number which has no multiplicitave factors other than
> itself and 1.
>
> Does that mean negatives can't be prime numbers?
>
> So, -3 breaks down to:
>
> -3 * 1 = -3; 3 * -1 would be another set of factors so negatives can't be
> primes in the strictest sense.
Negatives are not primes by definition.
- Igor.