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...
Description: PGP signature