[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 01:50:01AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes:
> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:35:16AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> >> >> It is easy to see that there exist numbers
> >> >> which occur in any their factorization. These are called "prime"
> >> >> numbers.
> >> >
> >> > That's not the definition of prime elements algebra uses, which is the
> >> > relevant field here. The algebraic definition of prime explicitly
> >> > excludes units.
> >> There's no algebra here, it is arithmetics, algebra may be relevant here,
> >> but it isn't to a large extent.
> > The arithmetic definition of prime doesn't agree with you either.
> Who told that? Please, avoid referring to "I was taught this way and
> refuse to learn anything else." What is the basis under definition you use?
I gave my definitions. I have no clue where you get yours from. All you
are doing is "There are other ways to define this". The two definitions
I gave and which you continue to ignore are those accepted in the field
of math. One of them is the fundation of classic arithmetics, the other
of modern number theory. I have seen no reason why using "Saushev
primes" would be better.
> You have stripped part of question to make it easier to attack.
> I didn't hear any rationale for your rejection of 1 and 0 as prime numbers.
> I count it as you don't have any.
See above. I stripped away all the irrevelant parts as they are not even
worth discussing as long as there is no agreement on the most basic
properties of the topic in question.
Main Index |
Thread Index |