On 19/02/2008, Pierre Abbat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 01:25, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > I don't like that very much. a two-dimensional number should be a
> > vector, not a complex number. {lujna'u} I like better, because this is
> > a composite number, just as {lujvo} is a composite word.
>
> But a composite number is a product of more than one prime number, not a
> complex number. 5, as a complex number, is composite, because it's the
> product of 2+i and 2-i, which are prime.
>
> Nit-picky point; composites are products of more than one irreducibles.
The two aren't equivalent in every Ring. (Not that I want to start
translating every term from abstract algebra.)
