3 ms·
Just the definition. a number with no factors beside 1 and itself, excluding zero 1 does not meet that definition, since 1 is already counted, the other facto
by bensalem 8y ago
Just the definition.
a number with no factors beside 1 and itself, excluding zero
1 does not meet that definition, since 1 is already counted, the other factor needs to be different.
- mcphage 8y agoSure, but the next question—which the linked article is about—is, why is that the definition?
- bensalem 8y agopedant. because it is a unit. but one thing I think is interesting is you can further categorize primes. FTA is unique factorization. but those factors can be re-arranged (most FTA text says ignoring order). considering order is interesting. then you can class primes by how many ways they can be rearranged. in that case, including 1 in the factorization once is interesting, since it differentiates between squares n x n and cubes n x n x n which can not be rearranged anyway unless you include 1 (not as a 'prime' but as the unit in the factorization) 1 x n x n, n x 1 x n, n x n x 1 3 ways. And cubes, 4 ways. From that point of view, primes are simply the numbers that can only be rearranged 2 ways. 1 x p, and p x 1 This is a very interesting avenue.
- ShamelessC 8y agoThe article mentions some of the historical context around defining 1 as a unit and also suggests its usefulness as a number due to base 10 arithmetic. I also think it is interesting to call the article pedantic and then make a similarly pedantic argument just beneath that claim.
- rat9988 8y agoIt's against the guidelines to say it I think. But I'm pretty sure at this point he didn't read the article. He has just read the title and thought he had enough knowledge on the matter to answer it without reading the author's writing.