2 Apr
2012
2 Apr
'12
12:23 p.m.
On 04/01/2012 05:23 PM, Derrik Walker wrote:
Not really...
There are certain matchematical statements that are provably true for
certain subsets of the integers. In some cases it makes sense to give the
particualr subset for which the statement is true its own name,
particularly when the same subset of the integers turns up in several
different theroems.
That's why defining the prime numbers as not including 1 is sensible.
It's just a neame for a subset of the integers that turns up all over the
place.
-tony
One is a unit. And, by definition, units are NOT
prime.
But that doesn't matter. Whats frakked up, is that they still teach one is a prime
to this day.
No. What's frakked up is this gang's total obsession with strict
classification and labeling.