Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps%bsd.lv@localhost> writes: >> You have never given neither definition nor rationale for it except >> references to some unknown authority, everything you have done so far is >> you have shown your faithful commitment into what you were told ex cathedra. >> I repeat once again, bring definition _and_ rationale behind it, definition >> without rationale isn't what we talked here before you single-handedly >> decided to coerce everyone to accept your point of view using advantage >> of the first move. > > Aleksej, Joerg is correct by definition. It's as simple as > that. 0 and 1 are not prime. Full-stop. Kristaps, Joerg is incorrect by definition. It is as simple as that. 0 and 1 are prime. Full-stop. > The following explanations may help you to understand the > definition of "prime" common in the literature and how this > relates to 0 and 1: > > http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57036.html > http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58723.html Neither reply of those include any rationale, definition is taken ex cathedra. No explanation is provided, only definitions. > If you disagree with these as well, I welcome you to publish a > proof in a math journal (not here) to the contrary. You may > find yourself heavily criticised by your reviewers. This is not > a matter of progressive thinking or differing "schools", but > simple math. Consider this as publication, provide critical review not based on appeals to your teacher, lecturer or books you read. So far you've failed to do that, you only repeated the same non-critical arguments based on faith or anything else but not reason. -- HE CE3OH...
Description: PGP signature