On 11 Apr 2006, at 20:14, Charles Yeomans wrote:
I've read quite a bit about this myself :) It is certainly possible to define the concept of prime number so as to include 1. But such definitions have long proved not to be the right one.
I'm not doubting that you're correct Charles, been a while since I did any math worth talking about, and I certainly don't have a degree in mathematics. It's just that it seems odd for my ickle brain that 1 isn't a prime when it's divisible by one and itself. (Or at least why it can't be a prime *as well* as a unit - are the definitions mutually exclusive?)
Anyway, we could be here till the cows come home, but at the end of the day there are far cleverer people than myself out there who I'm sure have spent years debating this very subject over long blackboards and many thousand packets of chalk, so I'll bow out. Plus it doesn't get my RB project finished whether it's a prime or not. :)
Interesting stuff though. All the best, Mark. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
