Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
Greg McCarroll wrote: > > * Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > This summary has been bought to you by the letters Alpha, Beta and > > Gamma, the numbers 1,3,5,7 all superimposed and the colour Octarine. > > and 2, please 2, it'll keep me happy, then we can discuss if 1 is > a prime number, ples I propose that 1 be prime if, and only if, 1 is not prime. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > > * Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > This summary has been bought to you by the letters Alpha, Beta and > > > Gamma, the numbers 1,3,5,7 all superimposed and the colour Octarine. > > > > and 2, please 2, it'll keep me happy, then we can discuss if 1 is > > a prime number, ples > > I propose that 1 be prime if, and only if, 1 is not prime. > No, definetly not. The partial set of prime numbers increases over the journey through integers. 1 is the logical starting point, and so it is added. This is the very spirit of primality. However this may be the rantings of a madman, it's just i feel like a jockey sometimes as i ride the sequence of prime numbers, jumping each new one and then feeling their occurence decrease. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > > > > * Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > > > This summary has been bought to you by the letters Alpha, Beta and > > > > Gamma, the numbers 1,3,5,7 all superimposed and the colour Octarine. > > > > > > and 2, please 2, it'll keep me happy, then we can discuss if 1 is > > > a prime number, ples > > > > I propose that 1 be prime if, and only if, 1 is not prime. > > > > No, definetly not. The partial set of prime numbers increases over > the journey through integers. 1 is the logical starting point, > and so it is added. This is the very spirit of primality. However > this may be the rantings of a madman, it's just i feel like a jockey > sometimes as i ride the sequence of prime numbers, jumping each > new one and then feeling their occurence decrease. Go to (void). Go directly to (void). Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. -- Piers
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
* Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > No, definetly not. The partial set of prime numbers increases over > > the journey through integers. 1 is the logical starting point, > > and so it is added. This is the very spirit of primality. However > > this may be the rantings of a madman, it's just i feel like a jockey > > sometimes as i ride the sequence of prime numbers, jumping each > > new one and then feeling their occurence decrease. > > Go to (void). Go directly to (void). Do not pass Go. Do not collect > £200. > I've left (void), they were far to sane. However point taken ;-) -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 06:59:10PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > No, definetly not. The partial set of prime numbers increases over > the journey through integers. 1 is the logical starting point, > and so it is added. This is the very spirit of primality. However > this may be the rantings of a madman, it's just i feel like a jockey > sometimes as i ride the sequence of prime numbers, jumping each > new one and then feeling their occurence decrease. Debates about definition tend to become dogmatic, and I don't think you're being serious anyway :-) Still... There is one excellent pragmatic reason for not considering 1 to be prime, which is that by ordinary definitions every integer >1 has a unique prime factorisation. 12=2*2*3, 100=2*2*5*5 etc. If you allow 1 as a prime, then you lose that because 100 is also 1*2*2*5*5, 1*1*2*2*5*5, etc ad infinitum. I'll resist the temptation to go into Ring Theory, the difference between prime and irreducible etc. But even though it seems obvious that 1 should be prime, there are good reasons to say that it's not, (the best of which I've just mentioned). [The reason for the confusion, I think, is that we tend to assume that whole numbers are either prime or composite (ie can be made by multiplying smaller numbers together). But 1 is neither -- it's what ring theorists would call a unit.] There's no reason you can't say that 1 is prime if you like though. (What do you think about -1?) .robin. -- "do not assume that you are in control of your own actions, but take responsibility for them anyway."
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
* Robin Houston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: i was actually being a little bit serious, albeit i used a bit of poetic license, with the horse riding analogy. however 1 does expose the artificial nature of primes > > There's no reason you can't say that 1 is prime if you like though. > (What do you think about -1?) i tend to think that has more to do with what are the factorisations of negative numbers, sure -1 can spill into f. of positive primes, but thats forced, so lets look at -ive factorisations -20 = -2 * -2 * -5 -40 = -2 * -2 * -2 * -5 * -1 the -1 makes a difference here my opinion about this i don't have a feeling for it, i can't feel it like i can +ive prime number factorisations maybe 1 is prime, maybe its not ... but it is part of the sequence, if only like a false start in a car anyway i've always liked prime factorials more, i.e. numbers that are the product of the set of primes up to that number (the number being a prime) e.g. p! = prime factorial 3 p! = 3 * 2 * 1 = 6 13 p! = 13 * 11 * 7 * 5 * 3 * 2 * 1 = (this is left to the reader) now if i recall correctly, and this is unlikely n p! + 1 is a prime yet with it we leave primes behind, for example above 3 p! + 1 = 7 which skips 5 why is 5 left out? of course it seems obvious that the product grows so large that it leaves out primes - but it does seem unclean - but thats the nature of primes Anyway, excuse the ramblings of an amateur, the next thing you'll know i'll be changing the[1] words ``Adolf Hitler'' into numbers and finding ``london.pm meetings held on the day after the first wednesday of the month'' in them, goodnight all, and a very good weekend Greg [1] plays ``get out of godwin law free'' card -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
Simon Wistow sent the following bits through the ether: > Well ladies and germs, time for London Perl Mongers mailing list summary > numero seven for the week starting 2001-02-26. Great! Many thanks to Simon! Let's all buy him a beer at the weekly london.pm meet ;-) > Leon is away talking at the German Perl Workshop so anything that goes > wrong with this is, as per usual, my fault. It was fun. I met lots of people. People met me and gave me lots of crazy ideas. Inline is cool. My german is better now. We drank Perl wine. It was very organised and very groovy indeed. More soon. Leon -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ yapc::Europehttp://yapc.org/Europe/ ... You are in a twisty little maze of Unix versions, all different
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
At Fri 02/03/01 18:19, Greg (quoting Simon) said: > > Getting back on topic, Dave Cross (again, the bitch) > > noticed that a 8uffy (who is london.pm's bitch) episode received > > complaints because it was too sexually explicit. Using their > > ph34r50m3 8uffy 5k177z various members of the list were able to > > deduce which ones. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/london-pm%40lists.dircon.co.uk/msg02533.html > > http://www.mail-archive.com/london-pm%40lists.dircon.co.uk/msg02534.html > > the sad thing is someone could deduce what episode it was based on > the complaints Actually, following some weekend research on alt.sad.buffy.fans, I now know that the episode in question wasn't "The Zeppo" as suggested, but "The Harsh Light Of Day". This means that the scene they were complaining about was Buffy's one night stand with Parker. I also hear that Thursday's showing of "Where The Wild Things Are" was cut to shreads - much in the same style as a Channel 4 episode of "Angel". Dave...
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 03:33:55AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote: Good job I saw the time zone on that before I witticized. > Actually, following some weekend research on alt.sad.buffy.fans, I now > know that the episode in question wasn't "The Zeppo" as suggested, but > "The Harsh Light Of Day". This means that the scene they were > complaining about was Buffy's one night stand with Parker. > > I also hear that Thursday's showing of "Where The Wild Things Are" was > cut to shreads - much in the same style as a Channel 4 episode of > "Angel". Aaargh. I *really* want cable. But I live in Brighton, so NTL won't give it to me. "We're not laying cable in your area for another year, Sir." Which would make me less peeved if I didn't know someone at work who has NTL cable TV in the road above me. *thud* -Dom
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
Dominic Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Which would make me less peeved if I didn't know someone at work who has > NTL cable TV in the road above me. *thud* Wireless network? -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire -
Re: London.pm List Weekly Summary 2001-02-26
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 12:01:08PM +, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > Dominic Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Which would make me less peeved if I didn't know someone at work who has > > NTL cable TV in the road above me. *thud* > > Wireless network? No he's on cable, and I'm in a basement flat. :-( -Dom
