PRIME NUMBERS

To be fair, you can define the 'prime numbers' to include one or not. Both sets exist. But it simplifies a lot of theroems if you don't class one as a prime numbner (as somebody said last night, if you include 1 in the set of primes to get a lot of theorems for 'prime numbers other than one', if you don't there are relatively few times where you have to say 'the set of prime numbers and 1'. But I absolutely agree that most, if not all, mathematicians do not include 1 i nthe set of prime numbers and it makes a lot of sense ot use the same defintion as the rest of the world :-) Having suffeed schools in the UK for many years, I have come to the conclusion that just about everything I was taught, from 'A drird orange is called an apricot' right up to 'A comparison is not a measurement'[1] was downright incorrect. Fortunataely I had access to real books on the subjects that interested me and read them... [1] As I ahve said before, I would love to see a defintion of measurement that does not involve comparison to a standard. That's what a measurement _is_. -tony