tech-userlevel archive

# Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor

```Steven Bellovin <smb%cs.columbia.edu@localhost> writes:

> On May 18, 2010, at 12:50 26PM, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> From "An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers", by Niven, Zuckerman, and
> Montgomery, Fifth Edition, 1991:
>
>       An integer p > 1 is called a prime number, or a prime, in case there is
> no divisor d of p satisfying 1 < d < p.
>
> Knuth, Vol. 2, Third Edition, implicitly says that 1 is not a prime.

You did read the discussion, didn't you?

I asked explicitly to avoid mere proclamations and provide rationale
behind accepted definitions.

"An x is called square root of y, in case y >= 0 and x*x = y.
(Consequently square root of negative number doesn't exist by definition.)"

If you wish, I know rationale behind the definition above, but it has
nothing to do with correctness of factorization or its uniqueness
as Joerg tried to "prove".

--
HE CE3OH...
```

Attachment: pgp6yvhWg9XS1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index