why do prime numbers exist?
Because we defined them in a way that includes some numbers
More importantly how do we know any numbers are prime? What if we just haven't found their factors yet?
No. It's about prime ideals in rings.
>>17077846Because if numbers were in superposition with each other then they would still be grounded.
>>17077846Prime numbers really just arise from the fact that the monoid of positive natural numbers under multiplication is infinitely generated. You simply look for generators, and other than 1, you grab a new prime every time you can't generate some element. 1 appended2 appended3 appended4 is generated by 25 appended6 is generated by 2 and 3etc
>>17077861What whole integer numbers do you think could be left to be discovered between 1 and 5?
>>170778834 dimensional integers that you can't conceptualise
>>17077885Ok, makes sense, you don't even know what an integer or a prime actually is given you think 4-dimensional integer makes any sense.
>>17077846It's just because humams think that "integers" are special
>>17077886>responds like someone who can't conceptualise 4d integers
>>17077889>responds without actually illustrating a 4d integer since its just a hallucinated concept rather than an actual mathematical element that can be diagrammed
>>17077887Numbers are not a thing in nature. They are whatever humans define them to be. The concept of a mixed number only has physical analogs if the units (also a human invention) are too large to be completely filled by whatever it is you're trying to describe.
>>17077890You are just repeating you can't conceptualise 4d integers and that therefore don't exist; that's classic black swan fallacy
>>17077887Rings have fundamental structure. Primes are actually special.
>>17077893You are just repeating that you can't illustrate a 4d integer because it is a hallucinate concept instead of an actual mathematical element that can be diagrammed. I didn't say it doesn't exist, I said it only exists in your imagination and you can't actually convert it into a coherent mathematical element. I also am not saying I am the only one that can't conceptualize it as an actual mathematical element since you obviously can't diagram it either despite continuing to pretend you can without evidence. That is classic black jeet arrogance.
>>17077895Strawman, it was never claimed 4d numbers could be represented or that I would represent them just that they can exist; you just put yourself in a corner by claiming they aren't real
>>17077846because their mommies and daddies loved each other very very much one day...
>>17077889lol you only know 4d integers? thats baby stuff. I'm often thinking about dd integers i.e. d^2 integers
>>17077899I don't think people are ready for that conversation
>>17077897>it was never claimed 4d numbers could be represented So they aren't actual math elements because they aren't actually integers and don't actually have 4 dimensions?>you just put yourself in a corner by claiming they aren't realNo, you put yourself in a corner by claiming there really are integers with 4 dimensions while knowing nothing about integers nor dimensions and being completely unable to show that your hallucinated concept can be graphed in terms of either integers or dimensions let alone both at the same time.
>>17077899And you will continue just impotently "thinking" about them since you will never diagram, graph, or plot them let alone map them to equivalent mathematical elements like prime numbers.
>>17077902>So they aren't actual math elements because they aren't actually integers and don't actually have 4 dimensions?No they have all of those >No, you put yourself in a corner by claiming there really are integers with 4 dimensions while knowing nothing about integers nor dimensions and being completely unable to show that your hallucinated concept can be graphed in terms of either integers or dimensions let alone both at the same time.Claiming for a third time they don't exist because you can't imagine them...
>>17077904>No they have all of thoseThen show them all on a graph.>Claiming for a third time they don't exist because you can't imagine them...I can imagine plenty of impossible nonsense that can't be graphed or expressed mathematically, but the problem is your claims and the fact you can't really graph anything because the thing you are talking about is a hallucination instead of coherent math.I am sure you will respond with more retarded nonsense and literally zero graphs, so thanks for all the additional evidence you are about to provide of your psychotic illness and zero math skills.
>>17077905>we don't see them therefore they can't existIt's well known repeating a fallacy multiple times makes it true
>>17077908It is well known you can't turn your mathematical hallucinations into a real graph because you are hallucinating and will continue to respond with more retarded nonsense and literally zero graphs, so thanks for all the additional evidence you are about to provide of your psychotic illness and zero math skills.
>>17077908>we don't see themBut we do see integers and dimensions, we just don't see the hallucinated things you are trying to call dimensional integers because they are your hallucinations rather than actual usable mathematical elements.
>>17077911>we see swans and the color black but we've never seen a black swan so it musn't exist
>>17077846no numbers exist, they are a fiction created by people
>>17077913We have seen black swans, though just like we have seen integers and dimensions. You however probably can't tell a swan from daffy duck because you don't know the difference between actual real animals and the imaginary nonsense that get conflated with real animals in your psychotic mind.
>>17077913https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swanHere are some pictures of black swans, now show your graphs of 4d integers.
>>17077917not that non, but eat shithttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9DXIT3m6N4GygehtlHl0ukgrgPJZteI
you have to learn to count in higher dimensions, that's really important
>>17077846to quantify prime pu$$y
>>17077941If you can present to me a 4d integer volume of shit, I will eat it, but until then you will just have to continue hallucinating the people who proved you wrong eating shit.
Is '4d integer' just the retard way of saying you have four integers?
>>17077949No, because anon is implying that it lies somewhere on the integer number line between the 1 and 5.>>17077883>>17077885He is just a retard reaching into complete incoherence to validate his hallucinated nonsense.
prime numbers are integers of 1. they dont exist.saying prime numbers exist is like saying a piece of atom exists. its undefined. you're playing with mud and saying you're building bricks.
>>17077952>a piece of atomSo a subatomic particle? You don't think those exist or you just don't care to learn about them and saying they don't exist is the easiest way to do that?
>>17077951>they don't exist because... they just don't ok?
>>17077949It's an integer that appears as a normal nuber is 3d space, obviously
>>17077956They exist as your retarded hallucinations rather than usable mathematical objects that other people can learn to use because you can only pretend they fit into mathematical graphs while saying nonsense about pretending hard enough makes it real instead of actually plotting them on a actual graph using real math.
>>17077961Prove they don't exist then
>>17077958No, a normal integer is on a 1D number line proving you don't understand what an integer even is or how it relates to dimensionality.
>>17077963I have already collected tons of evidence that you can't graph them, I said they exist as hallucinations rather than mathematical objects since you can only imply and you can't actually graph them using math, so you have given me a lot of evidence proving you can't and your retarded psychotic nonsense will continue to add to the evidence since you will never produce a graph of your hallucination given they are not actual math objects.
>>17077965>can't actually disprove 4d numbersI accept your defeat
>>17077964A 1d line can be rotated in 3d space so they are 3d numbers
>>17077966>accidentally moves the goalpost from integers to numbers because he doesn't know what he is talking aboutI accept your retardation.
>>17077968No, you need 3d to have 3d space, a integer number line is only 1d.
>>17077968>1d line can be rotated in 3d spaceNo, its only reference is itself.>so they are 3d numbersAdd i and you get 2D numbers.
>>17077846Vgh.. they just do, OK?
