5 ms·

> That is the claim under contention no, whether or not it is obvious is under contention. I hope no one doubts what I said. I also never said it's obvious, I

• Chinjut 10y ago
  Alright. I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at with your comment. And perhaps you misunderstood the nature of my conversation with PepeGomez? You appeared to be correcting me over some misunderstanding I never evinced. PepeGomez claimed "If it's divisible by a number, the number must appear in its factorization and vice versa." in apparent support of the argument that uniqueness of prime factorizations is therefore obvious. In response to this, I wrote my initial comment. When, in it, I asked "Who says 'if it's divisible by a number, the number must appear in its factorization'? Why is that true?", that was in response to PepeGomez, a rhetorical way of engaging with the claim they made. I further noted in my comment that this claim about divisibility and factorizations wasn't quite correct for arbitrary numbers, but was true for prime numbers, but is nonetheless non-obvious for prime numbers. It appears you agree with me on all of this, so... great.