Thread Tools
Old December 4, 2003, 01:02   #31
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
Originally posted by SnowFire It may be harder to understand why 1^infinity is the same. But basically, when you multiply a number infinite times, things get wonky. Don't forget that a number infinitely close to 1 is still "1" (just as .9999... = 1), but if you do infinite multiplications on it, you might be able to "undo" that closeness and bring out some larger number.
Just one quibble. .9 repeated is in fact exactly equal to one, because it is the sum from k=1 to infinity of (1/10)^k, which is one (by one of the rules about sums). 1^infinity isn't a number because infinity isn't a number. However, the limit as x goes to infinity of 1^x is 1.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 01:21   #32
Ramo
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ramo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Fear and Oil
Posts: 5,892
What Snow is getting at is the basic reason why .9.... = 1, namely that the sequence of .9, .99, .999, etc. converge to 1 (look up epsilon-delta proofs). Summing up an infinite series of .1k adds some unneccessary baggage wrt small, but very important analysis details (not to mention the hassle of proving the theorem you're using).

And I think you miss his point: the limit as x approaches infinity of 1x isn't well-defined, for the reason he pointed out. Think of it this way: let's say you're looking at .999999999999999 and take it's 1000000000000'th power. Not as close to 1 as .999999999999, right? Now, convergence is defined such that when there's an arbitrarily small difference between the two numbers, they're the "same" number. So how much of distortion do you think there would be if you took this arbitrarily small perturbation from 1 to an arbitrarily large power (infinity)? Think about it for a minute. Is it large? Is it small? Is it either?
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon

Last edited by Ramo; December 4, 2003 at 02:00.
Ramo is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 09:05   #33
LulThyme
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Skywalker is right
If you stick to the definition
"a prime is a number with only itself and 1 as factors"
Then 1 is indeed prime.
The THING is, that as he said, that is not the right definition.
the right definition in terms of rings (abstract algebra) in general, excludes units and reduces to the one above in the case of the ring of integers for the non-units.
So in high school, they teach you the one above because it is much easier to remember and tell USUALLY tell you that 1 is not a prime by convention...
 
Old December 4, 2003, 11:31   #34
TheStinger
Civilization III Democracy Game
King
 
TheStinger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: International crime fighting playboy
Posts: 1,063
Shouldn't you guys be doing something more useful like
watching paint dry
__________________
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)
TheStinger is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 12:42   #35
Enigma_Nova
C4DG The Mercenary Team
Emperor
 
Enigma_Nova's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally posted by geeslaka
1 being prime does not eliminate unique factorizations.
16 = 2^4 * 1^(anything) * (every other prime)^0

If you wish to include all the factors then indeed there is only one unique factorisation.
This happens to include an infinite number of terms.
Thus, for 16 as for all numbers, there are an infinite number of factors.

If all numbers have an infinite number of factors, how do you determine which is prime?
Do you consider only the non-one factors, and if there is only one of these, the number is prime?

In that definition, one ceases to be prime, as it has NO non-one factors.

Pardon me while I get the FTA's definition up on-screen
http://www.sonoma.edu/users/w/wilson...te/8/t8-5.html
Enigma_Nova is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 13:16   #36
East Street Trader
Prince
 
East Street Trader's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 814
The definition can be re-stated,

"For an integer to be a prime number it must be divisible by precisely two numbers, by one and by itself."

If you ask which two numbers one is divisible by the answer is that it is not divisible by two numbers but by one number only.

So as a matter of semantics the integer one does not meet the definition.

Which is why Euclid used the word "and". (The express exclusion in the definition is otiose.)

Last edited by East Street Trader; December 4, 2003 at 13:37.
East Street Trader is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 13:19   #37
Japher
Emperor
 
Japher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mu Mu Land
Posts: 6,570
Quote:
Shouldn't you guys be doing something more useful like
watching paint dry
did that... watching it fade now
__________________
Monkey!!!
Japher is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 14:54   #38
DinoDoc
Civilization II Democracy GameApolytoners Hall of Fame
Deity
 
DinoDoc's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Underwater no one can hear sharks scream
Posts: 11,096
Quote:
Originally posted by Japher
did that... watching it fade now
Is it more entertaining?
DinoDoc is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 14:58   #39
orange
Civilization III Democracy GameNationStatesDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
orange's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: It doesn't matter what your name is!
Posts: 3,601
A number is prime when it has two factors: itself and 1. I believe 1 qualifies.

Here's the definition of a prime number from the dictionary:
Quote:
A positive integer not divisible without a remainder by any positive integer other than itself and one.
Positive Integer: Yup
Not divisible without a remainder by any positive integer other than itself and one: Yup
__________________
"Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

"I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui
orange is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 15:04   #40
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
There's no debate. By convention 1 is not a prime. The motivation for this is the uniqueness of prime factorization.
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 16:08   #41
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
1 is prime... the definition a prime number is:

a number divisble by only itself and 1... is 1 divisible by any other number other than itself (1) or 1? no...

every number can be infinitely divided by 1, so that argument is meaningless...

EDIT: Damn you orange!
__________________
(\__/) "Sava is teh man" -Ecthy
(='.'=)
(")_(") bring me everyone
Sava is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 18:20   #42
LulThyme
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lol
Who would you listen to : a dictionnary? or mathematicians on the matter.
a primer number is a technical definition in the field of math. what the dictionnary says is way less important to how mathematicians define it.
Crash Course in Ring Algebra :
Rings are sets with 2 binary operations defined on them that act sort of like addition and multiplication.
For example, the ring of integers with addition and multiplication, but also the ring of polynomials, ring of continuous fonctions etc...
all ring must have a 0, which is the neutral element with respect to addition, that is when you add 0, you get 0.
(the ring of integers has one : 0).
Although you can always define substraction in a ring by the opposite of addition, it is NOT always possible to define Division as the inverse of multiplication, because some elements of the ring may not have multiplicative inverses.
For example, if we look at integers, the multiplicative inverse of 2 is not an integer. Now the multiplicative inverse of 1 is 1 and is an integer. Elements which have multiplicative inverses are called UNITS.
For example, if you know something about matrices, you will know that some of them (those with det = 0) are not inversible, while the others are.
So those which are inversible and units and the others not.
In some rings, for example the rational numbers (the fractions of integers), all elements but 0 (which never has an inverse) are invertible. Such rings are called fields (if multiplication is commutative) or division rings.
But we are interested in rings which have units and non-units , like the ring of integers, which has 0 (which is special) 1 (which is a unit) and all the other integers (non-units).
The last important thing is this , if , in a ring, a*b= 0 implies a= 0 or b=0, then it is called a domain.
That is a ring is a domain if no two non-zero elements multiplied together makes 0.
So the ring of integers is a domain (an integral domain actually).
Now comes the part we were waiting for.
Factorization of elements in and integral domain!!
We say that an element a of a ring R is factored if it equal to a product of two or more elements of R.
If we have units in the ring(there is always at least 1 : 1, the neutral element of multiplication), we have some trivial factorization : a= a * u /u (remember that u is a unit, so as I said earlier, we are allowed to divide by u, but this is not true in general).
A factorization a = ub where u is a unit is called a TRIVIAL factorization.
in the case of integers this means that a=1*a is the only trivial factorization (since 1 is our only unit).
These factorizations are of no interest obviously.
AND NOW FINALLY :
an element p in an integral domain is called an irreducible element if it satisfies both :
(1) p not equal to 0,
(2) P NOT A UNIT
(3) If p=a*b then a or b is a unit.
All these are very important to keep on going in the theory of Domains. From here we could go on, and get to Unique Factorization, and the Euclidean Algorithm and so on.
Now in the case of integers :
(1) irreducibles are not 0
(2) irreducibles are not 1
(3) any factorization of irreducibles, is trivial, meaning the only factorization of p is p = p*1*1*1..
THERE are NO non trivial factorization.
There is a convention not to count trivial factorization.
So then the true definition of irreducibles for integers is any number,except 0 and 1, which has no non-trivial factorizations.
These are the positive and negative primes, or if we restrict ouself to positive integers, the primes.

So yeah if you use the dictionnary definition (which I believe they jsut wanted to make short and simple) 1 is a prime.

But if you want to use primes for anything except talking about aroudn a cofee table or on Apolyton , like for proving theorems and such, then 1 is NOT a prime, because, as a unit, it is already excluded.
If you want to know why the definition is that way, I could explain but then we would get in a bit heavier theory.
 
Old December 4, 2003, 18:23   #43
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
Originally posted by TheStinger
Shouldn't you guys be doing something more useful like
watching paint dry
I fail to see how this is any less useful than any other thread in the OT
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 18:27   #44
Japher
Emperor
 
Japher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mu Mu Land
Posts: 6,570
Quote:
Is it more entertaining?
Not really. It's raining now so I hope it gets better!

Is 0 prime, no it can be devided by everything!!! Even two! So, is it even? odd? What the heck is Zero!!! Actually, where is Zero?
__________________
Monkey!!!
Japher is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 18:28   #45
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Japher - see the post above mine.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 18:48   #46
LulThyme
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
0 is not a prime, by my definition above
0 is even. it is also divisble by 3,
In facti it is divisble by every number.
 
Old December 4, 2003, 20:36   #47
orange
Civilization III Democracy GameNationStatesDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
orange's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: It doesn't matter what your name is!
Posts: 3,601
i don't think 0 qualifies as a positive number, either

LulThyme - I'm sorry but I still disagree with you. 1 is Prime, in my eyes.
__________________
"Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

"I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui
orange is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 21:58   #48
Peter Triggs
CTP2 Source Code ProjectCivilization IV Creators
King
 
Local Time: 13:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gone Fishin, Canada
Posts: 1,059
LulThyme and KrazyHorse are correct. There is nothing to argue about.

Quote:
A slightly less illuminating but mathematically correct reason is noted by Tietze (1965, p. 2), who states "Why is the number 1 made an exception? This is a problem that schoolboys often argue about, but since it is a question of definition, it is not arguable."
Peter Triggs is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 22:25   #49
connorkimbro
Emperor
 
connorkimbro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seoul Korea
Posts: 4,344
It is my strong opinion that Enigma only started this thread so that he could demonstrate to everyone how smart he is.
__________________
-connorkimbro
"We're losing the war on AIDS. And drugs. And poverty. And terror. But we sure took it to those Nazis. Man, those were the days."

-theonion.com
connorkimbro is offline  
Old December 4, 2003, 22:47   #50
LulThyme
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well orange it depends on the context
usually if you want to exclude, you woudl say Strictly positive, usually positive includes 0 (as does negative btw)
Because 0 is the neutral element with respect to addition, so it makes the positive integers into a monoid. (another technical term)
The thing about math (at least this kind of math) si you cant argue it.
Primes are DEFINED as excluding units, that means 1.
That means that if you ask anybody who actually works with primes, there is no ARGUMENT about if 1 is a prime, you could say there is no reason either, it is just defined that way.
Just like if I DEFINE f(x)= 2x.
You cant argue that its not 2x.
Its the definition.
Now if you want to know why they define 1 as not being a prime, thats another story, with part of it on the first page already, its because it makes proving theorems easier, and makes them nicer (very important in mathematics).
 
Old December 4, 2003, 22:55   #51
LulThyme
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
You have to understand that 1 is very special.
If we look at positive integers (thus including 0).
0 is very special because it is the additive neutral element, it is the multiplicative absorber (or whatever in english), and you can't divide anything by it.
Those 3 properties go hand in hand and 0 works like this in every ring.
Now 1 is also special, although only for multiplication (it has no special addition property).
First it is the neutral element.
And second because it is a neutral element it is a unit (although sometimes in other rings there are other units like in the ring of matrices)
This is the property that makes 1 special in our thread.
1 is a unit, so has a multiplicative inverse, so every number can be divided by it, and even more, since it is the neutral element, you get the same number.
So the very important fact is that
1*a=a for all a.
There is this very important theorem called Unique factorization. It means that there is only one way to factorize any strictly positive integer such that none of the factors can be further factorize.
So take any pos integer but 0, say 9.
it can be factorized as 3*3. none of these can be factorized further if we dont allow 1*3 as a factorization and so it is unique.
If we allow it, we can get 1*3*3 or 1*1*3*3 and so on

The key is here : the factorization process does not stop anymore, it is endless.
If 1 is not a prime and we count1*a as trivial, it is obvious that the factorization process will stop and nothing will be able to be further reduced.
 
Old December 4, 2003, 23:03   #52
LulThyme
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I thinkn adding this might help.
If we consider 1 a prime, no computer crashes, no algorithm stop working, no sky falls anywhere.
All math keeps working, we just have to add a lot of exceptions all over the place. Make exceptions in proofs and algorithms for 1. All primes except 1. etc...
So in a way it is an aesthetic choice.
Some of you (orange ) might think that makes you right, but in fact it removes your last argument.
Even if you look at it from a "choice" point of you, the easiest and simplest choice is to exclude 1 from the list of prime, which I think even Euclid understood.
 
Old December 4, 2003, 23:30   #53
Ramo
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ramo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Fear and Oil
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
it is the multiplicative absorber (or whatever in english)
That'd be "fixed point."
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Ramo is offline  
Old December 5, 2003, 07:17   #54
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
Quote:
Originally posted by Sava
1 is prime... the definition a prime number is:

a number divisble by only itself and 1... is 1 divisible by any other number other than itself (1) or 1? no...

every number can be infinitely divided by 1, so that argument is meaningless...

EDIT: Damn you orange!
The two people with math degrees here (as I recall LulThyme was a mathie) are both telling you guys the same thing: 1 is not considered prime. It's always mentioned specifically in giving the definition of primes that 1 is not a prime...
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old December 5, 2003, 09:36   #55
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:37
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Plus, I'll just add my dad's voice to this (my dad has a masters in mathematics and is an actuary) - one is not a prime.

__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:37.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team