>1 is not a prime because it is inconvenient nigga what about 2π? fucking hypocrite
>>16375001>2πnot an integer lmao frog buttsex initiated
>>16375001>what about 2π?That's not prime either.
>>16375287>>16375012the two in front of pie you fucking morons,
>>163758152 is a prime lmao I will now fuck your face like a pie
>>163750011 is a mega giga prime.all primes are 1's bitch because you can always make a rectangle of prime area using a side of length 1 and the other side that same prime number.
>>16377405tard bro .. if 1 is prime then there is only 1 prime so what the point?eat the cat eat eat the cat
>>163774231 is giga prime.2 is super prime.rest are their children.
>>16377433I feel you sister
>>16375815everybody knows two pies is better than one. are you retarded or something?
>>16375001A prime number is a number that has exactly 2 divisors.1 has exactly 1.
>>16377481Hi thot friend 1 isn't a divisor it's a identity you literally can't outdivide it or divide it out
>>16375815>1 is prime but 2 is notare you being retarded on purpose
>>16377500NTA but 1 looks like a pencil dick and 2 look like a titty flapping so maybe someone is being retarded on purpose maybe
>>16377495Yes it is.For example, 1 is a divisor of 7.
>>16377529what is 7 divided by 1
>>16375001>what about 2π?Factors into 2 and π. Sorry.
>>16375001Nice hat
>>16375001You mean what about 1π?
>>163775400
>>16375001Mathlet here, why is 1 being a prime inconvenient?
>>16381099"every number can be uniquely written as a product of primes" would no longer be true
>>16381099If 1 is a prime, then the following statement is not true:>Every positive integer has a unique set of prime factors
>>16381104Wouldn't you then just be shifting the exception?Shifting 1 from being the exception from primes to 1 being an exception of "positive integers that have a unique set of prime factors"?Is it just a matter of which of these two classifications are more important?
>>16381112Shifting the exception in a definition seems preferable to shifting the exception in a bunch of theorems
>>16381121Fair enough, I am unaware of how important it is that every positive integer has a unique set of prime factors.
>>16381104But if 1 is prime then 1*1 = 1 shows that it is just the same as any other prime, being only the product of 1 and another prime...1 has the unique property of being a square number and prime.I don't get why the general population of mathematicians are so exceedingly stupid like computers
>>163811531 and 1*1 are two different factorizations
>>16375001Math be trolling sometimesMath is the language of the universeTrolling is a part of the universeTherefore sometimes math be trolling
>>16381158Wrong pajeet, 1 is not "a factorization", it is an identity, just as 7 is an identity, and 1*1 is the prime factorization since they're the only absolute whole numbers which can multiply to 1 just as 1*7 is the prime factorization since they're the only absolute whole numbers which can multiply to 7.Face it pajeet, you don't understand numbers nor english as well as you believe you do.
>>16381404what about 1*7*7?
>>16381412It is the prime factorization of 49 and happens to be identical to a 49 unit square
1 is the representation of an empty product and primes are about factorization thus 1 is not a prime. It is irrelevant to primes and doesn't share any qualities with other primes.It is about as meaningful as asking why an apple is not a number.
>>16381925I think this question really highlights the way we moderns view the concept of number. It comes about naturally enough as a question. Instead of 1 I still call it unity
>>16381158No, they're not. All factorizations are unique.It's like basis vectors in linear algebra. You can't have 0 + k1 + k2 + ... be unique from k1 + k2 + ... because it violates the idea that they're unique.1 and 1*1 are written differently on paper but correspond to the same abstract idea or Form. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that "one plus two equals three" is somehow different from "eins plus zwei ist gleich drei". It's pure sophistry.
>>16375012It would be an integer in pie-based numbering system.
>>16381939yes that's why 0 can never be a basis element
>>16381176That's deep.Sort of.
>>16375001>he doesn't know about τNgmi
>>16381966No, it would be transcendental.
>>16381122isnt that important in cryptography?
>>16384875NTA but cryptography is only a salient concern to terrorists and pedophiles. If the multiplicative identity were considered a prime, then every other number would be nonprime, so the property itself would be useless and retarded. It's that simple.
All you had to say was 'neat but weak prociprioception of concept and then post registry.'
