Why is the definition of prime numbers written to include 2 [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
$begingroup$
This question is often asked as "why is 2 a prime number" and the only answers I can find are "The definition of prime numbers is written in such a way that 2 is prime". Sometimes, if the question was "Why is 2 a prime number even though it's even" the answer will include some explanation that being even is not such a special property, it just means a number is divisible by two and of course two is divisible by two, that's the number itself and three is divisible by three and it's still prime and so on.
But there is something special about a number being even, and it 2 does have a special property that is not shared by any other prime number. It can be divided into equal subsets.
The answer I'm looking for will answer the question in the title and also answer: If we change the definition of a prime number, what effects does that have on mathematics theories, proofs, etc. Are certain claims that were useful and important under the old definition no longer true?
Specifically, What's the impact of changing the definition of prime to this: A prime is any integer that cannot be divided into smaller equal groups. N.B. this also changes the primeness of 1 but not any other number.
prime-numbers definition
asked Jan 25 at 17:21
SegfaultSegfault
1225
$endgroup$
closed as unclear what you're asking by Peter, Lord Shark the Unknown, metamorphy, Shailesh, ancientmathematician Jan 26 at 7:38
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
This question is often asked as "why is 2 a prime number" and the only answers I can find are "The definition of prime numbers is written in such a way that 2 is prime". Sometimes, if the question was "Why is 2 a prime number even though it's even" the answer will include some explanation that being even is not such a special property, it just means a number is divisible by two and of course two is divisible by two, that's the number itself and three is divisible by three and it's still prime and so on.
But there is something special about a number being even, and it 2 does have a special property that is not shared by any other prime number. It can be divided into equal subsets.
The answer I'm looking for will answer the question in the title and also answer: If we change the definition of a prime number, what effects does that have on mathematics theories, proofs, etc. Are certain claims that were useful and important under the old definition no longer true?
Specifically, What's the impact of changing the definition of prime to this: A prime is any integer that cannot be divided into smaller equal groups. N.B. this also changes the primeness of 1 but not any other number.
prime-numbers definition
asked Jan 25 at 17:21
SegfaultSegfault
1225
$endgroup$
closed as unclear what you're asking by Peter, Lord Shark the Unknown, metamorphy, Shailesh, ancientmathematician Jan 26 at 7:38
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
7
$begingroup$
It would mess up the theory of prime factorisation if $2$ weren't prime....
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 25 at 17:22
28
$begingroup$
Why is $3$ a prime number? It's the only prime divisible by $3$. Shouldn't that be special?
$endgroup$
– saulspatz
Jan 25 at 17:22
3
$begingroup$
A number $n$ is prime when has exactly two divisors : $1$ and $n$ itself. See Euclid's Elements, BK. VII, Def.11 : "A prime number is that which is measured by a unit alone."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 25 at 17:23
14
$begingroup$
There is nothing special about the ability to be divided into smaller equal parts. Every natural number $n$ can be divided into $n$ groups of $1$.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Jan 25 at 17:25
6
$begingroup$
There are numbers that have the property that they can only be divided by themselves and one. The number $2$ has this property so it is included in the set of numbers that have the property. Why would we discriminate against it?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
Jan 25 at 17:28
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
This question is often asked as "why is 2 a prime number" and the only answers I can find are "The definition of prime numbers is written in such a way that 2 is prime". Sometimes, if the question was "Why is 2 a prime number even though it's even" the answer will include some explanation that being even is not such a special property, it just means a number is divisible by two and of course two is divisible by two, that's the number itself and three is divisible by three and it's still prime and so on.
But there is something special about a number being even, and it 2 does have a special property that is not shared by any other prime number. It can be divided into equal subsets.
The answer I'm looking for will answer the question in the title and also answer: If we change the definition of a prime number, what effects does that have on mathematics theories, proofs, etc. Are certain claims that were useful and important under the old definition no longer true?
Specifically, What's the impact of changing the definition of prime to this: A prime is any integer that cannot be divided into smaller equal groups. N.B. this also changes the primeness of 1 but not any other number.
prime-numbers definition
asked Jan 25 at 17:21
SegfaultSegfault
1225
$endgroup$
This question is often asked as "why is 2 a prime number" and the only answers I can find are "The definition of prime numbers is written in such a way that 2 is prime". Sometimes, if the question was "Why is 2 a prime number even though it's even" the answer will include some explanation that being even is not such a special property, it just means a number is divisible by two and of course two is divisible by two, that's the number itself and three is divisible by three and it's still prime and so on.
But there is something special about a number being even, and it 2 does have a special property that is not shared by any other prime number. It can be divided into equal subsets.
The answer I'm looking for will answer the question in the title and also answer: If we change the definition of a prime number, what effects does that have on mathematics theories, proofs, etc. Are certain claims that were useful and important under the old definition no longer true?
Specifically, What's the impact of changing the definition of prime to this: A prime is any integer that cannot be divided into smaller equal groups. N.B. this also changes the primeness of 1 but not any other number.
prime-numbers definition
prime-numbers definition
asked Jan 25 at 17:21
SegfaultSegfault
1225
asked Jan 25 at 17:21
SegfaultSegfault
1225
asked Jan 25 at 17:21
SegfaultSegfault
1225
asked Jan 25 at 17:21
SegfaultSegfault
1225
asked Jan 25 at 17:21
SegfaultSegfault
1225
1225
closed as unclear what you're asking by Peter, Lord Shark the Unknown, metamorphy, Shailesh, ancientmathematician Jan 26 at 7:38
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as unclear what you're asking by Peter, Lord Shark the Unknown, metamorphy, Shailesh, ancientmathematician Jan 26 at 7:38
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
7
$begingroup$
It would mess up the theory of prime factorisation if $2$ weren't prime....
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 25 at 17:22
28
$begingroup$
Why is $3$ a prime number? It's the only prime divisible by $3$. Shouldn't that be special?
$endgroup$
– saulspatz
Jan 25 at 17:22
3
$begingroup$
A number $n$ is prime when has exactly two divisors : $1$ and $n$ itself. See Euclid's Elements, BK. VII, Def.11 : "A prime number is that which is measured by a unit alone."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 25 at 17:23
14
$begingroup$
There is nothing special about the ability to be divided into smaller equal parts. Every natural number $n$ can be divided into $n$ groups of $1$.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Jan 25 at 17:25
6
$begingroup$
There are numbers that have the property that they can only be divided by themselves and one. The number $2$ has this property so it is included in the set of numbers that have the property. Why would we discriminate against it?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
Jan 25 at 17:28
|
show 12 more comments
7
$begingroup$
It would mess up the theory of prime factorisation if $2$ weren't prime....
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 25 at 17:22
28
$begingroup$
Why is $3$ a prime number? It's the only prime divisible by $3$. Shouldn't that be special?
$endgroup$
– saulspatz
Jan 25 at 17:22
3
$begingroup$
A number $n$ is prime when has exactly two divisors : $1$ and $n$ itself. See Euclid's Elements, BK. VII, Def.11 : "A prime number is that which is measured by a unit alone."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 25 at 17:23
14
$begingroup$
There is nothing special about the ability to be divided into smaller equal parts. Every natural number $n$ can be divided into $n$ groups of $1$.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Jan 25 at 17:25
6
$begingroup$
There are numbers that have the property that they can only be divided by themselves and one. The number $2$ has this property so it is included in the set of numbers that have the property. Why would we discriminate against it?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
Jan 25 at 17:28
7
7
$begingroup$
It would mess up the theory of prime factorisation if $2$ weren't prime....
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 25 at 17:22
$begingroup$
It would mess up the theory of prime factorisation if $2$ weren't prime....
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 25 at 17:22
28
28
$begingroup$
Why is $3$ a prime number? It's the only prime divisible by $3$. Shouldn't that be special?
$endgroup$
– saulspatz
Jan 25 at 17:22
$begingroup$
Why is $3$ a prime number? It's the only prime divisible by $3$. Shouldn't that be special?
$endgroup$
– saulspatz
Jan 25 at 17:22
3
3
$begingroup$
A number $n$ is prime when has exactly two divisors : $1$ and $n$ itself. See Euclid's Elements, BK. VII, Def.11 : "A prime number is that which is measured by a unit alone."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 25 at 17:23
$begingroup$
A number $n$ is prime when has exactly two divisors : $1$ and $n$ itself. See Euclid's Elements, BK. VII, Def.11 : "A prime number is that which is measured by a unit alone."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 25 at 17:23
14
14
$begingroup$
There is nothing special about the ability to be divided into smaller equal parts. Every natural number $n$ can be divided into $n$ groups of $1$.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Jan 25 at 17:25
$begingroup$
There is nothing special about the ability to be divided into smaller equal parts. Every natural number $n$ can be divided into $n$ groups of $1$.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Jan 25 at 17:25
6
6
$begingroup$
There are numbers that have the property that they can only be divided by themselves and one. The number $2$ has this property so it is included in the set of numbers that have the property. Why would we discriminate against it?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
Jan 25 at 17:28
$begingroup$
There are numbers that have the property that they can only be divided by themselves and one. The number $2$ has this property so it is included in the set of numbers that have the property. Why would we discriminate against it?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
Jan 25 at 17:28
|
show 12 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We define things in such a way that they have some practical use, and help us make sense of the world around us. This is exactly how words and concepts are created, and also evolve. For example, we decided to give a name to a class of objects in the sky with similar behavior: 'planets'. These objects form what a philosopher might call a 'natural' class of objects. Having labels for them allows us to talk and think about those objects more easily, helping us with explanations, predictions, doing science, and again making sense of things in general.
But like I said, definitions can evolve: Pluto is no longer considered a 'planet', because after finding out more about our solar system we realized Pluto is in significant ways different from Neptune, Jupiter, Earth, etc. That is, by putting Pluto into different (though still related) class of 'dwarf-planets', we now look at it a little differently.
The same holds for mathematical definitions. For example, we could define 'huppelflup numbers' to be exactly those numbers that can be divided by 17 or by 631 ... but there just isn't much practical use to such a definition, and so we don't.
But the way we define prime numbers has lots of practical uses. For example, with the current definition, we get the nice, clean, result that every number has a unique prime factorization. And it's not just applications within mathematics that matter: prime numbers have tremendous importance for real life as well.
Now, if we were to exclude $2$ as a prime, this would no longer be true. And a bunch of other results would likewise have to be stated in a much more cumbersome way.
And by the way, this unique prime factorization theorem is exactly why mathematicians did exclude $1$ as a prime .. even though originally it was.
So yes, you're right that it is not as if definitions are fixed until the end of time. And maybe at some point in the future we redefine the sets of primes again to also exclude $2$, because doing so will have some other advantages.
However, I wouldn't hold my breadth: the current definition is very nice.
answered Jan 25 at 17:33
Bram28Bram28
62.4k44793
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:43
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault I figured ... It's good you ask these kinds of questions, and hold our feet to the fire. For someone to say: 'but that's just what the definition is!" is really not enough; there are reasons to be made for defining things a certain way in the first place, and sometimes we may want to revisit those reasons and see if they are still most useful.
$endgroup$
– Bram28
Jan 25 at 17:56
$begingroup$
@Segfault I really want to stress the uniqueness property. If you can show that there must be a unique X for every Y, then you show that there is no arbitrary human choice involved. This often means that your X is "as good as it can get" in describing Y. You'll find this a lot. E.g. the invertibility of a matrix A says that for each y there is a unique x s.t. $A x = y$. The fundamental theorem of calculus states that there is a unique antiderivative up to an additive constant, etc.
$endgroup$
– WorldSEnder
Jan 25 at 21:35
$begingroup$
My stochastic geometry Prof would always tell us Definitions, they are the rockstars of mathematics, not theorems
$endgroup$
– nate
Jan 26 at 1:40
$begingroup$
"Planets" has changed far more than just Pluto and some similar older stories. It originally meant "wanderers" and referred to all objects whose position in the sky moved with respect to the fixed stars. The sun and moon were both planets at one time.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Jan 26 at 3:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$2$ is considered a prime because most of the time that turns out to be convenient. $1$ is not considered a prime for the same reason.
That being said, $2$ is definitely the oddest prime.
answered Jan 25 at 17:29
ArthurArthur
115k7116198
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry, I don't understand why it's convenient for two to be a prime.
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:30
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault Almost every single theorem concerning primes or non-primes is a reason why it's convenient. Not a single one of them can be pointed to as the reason (although the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a strong contender), but together they make a compelling argument.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 25 at 17:31
3
$begingroup$
So the oddest prime is even! :o)
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Jan 25 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
@bernard Negative, that'd be Conway's prime $-1$ $ $
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jan 25 at 20:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may wish to read the 2012 Journal of Integer Sequences article What is the Smallest Prime?, by Chris K. Caldwell and Yeng Xiong. The abstract starts with
What is the first prime? It seems that the number two should be the obvious answer, and today it is, but it was not always so. There were times when and mathematicians for whom the numbers one and three were acceptable answers.
Also, as already basically stated in the comments and other answers, the Introduction says
... whether or not a number (especially unity) is a prime is a matter of definition, so a matter of choice, context and tradition, not a matter of proof. Yet definitions are not made at random; these choices are bound by our usage of mathematics and, especially in this case, by our notation.
I enjoyed reading this article & found it educational. The only thing I have to add to this article & what's already been stated here is that I also believe it's generally good to question things instead of just accepting the status quo because "that's the way it is". During my years tutoring math at university, I had a philosophy of "there's no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer". What I mean is that if the person has made a reasonable effort to resolve it on their own and the question is sincere, it's deserving of a reasonable answer.
answered Jan 25 at 19:19
John OmielanJohn Omielan
2,649212
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks! I'll read it
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An addendum to the other answers:
The number $2$ is actually so special that it often is exluded from consideration. The set of primes with $2$ excluded is often referred to as the set of odd primes.
Imprecisely: We are "lucky" enough that we can describe this set using other accepted terms and expressions, otherwise we might have come up with a new name for this set.
Examples:
"Law of quadratic reciprocity — Let p and q be distinct odd prime numbers" - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic Reciprocity
"If a, b, c is a non-trivial solution to $x^p + y^p = z^p , p$ odd prime, then $y^2 = x(x − ap)(x + bp)$ (Frey curve) will be an elliptic curve" - from Wikipedia page on Fermat's last theorem.
"Let the characteristic of K be different from 2." - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic forms.
answered Jan 26 at 4:00
Gunnar SveinssonGunnar Sveinsson
6115
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Concepts which use prime numbers as objects for study and consideration are learned at a much earlier stage, in acquiring mathematical maturity, than sets. I don't think you mean "group" in the way that word is used in mathematics, but even in the way you do use, it's less useful than the indivisibility definition.
Plainly, there are many primitive concepts for which the decomposition of numbers into products of indivisible factors is telling something about their properties.
And there is the principle that definitions of terms are considered good if the theorems which can be phrased and proven using those terms are as simply-stated as possible.
answered Jan 26 at 2:20
grovkingrovkin
1113
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you clarify what definition of the prime number you are using? The one I know is
a natural number that is divisible only by itself and 1
Or a variation of it. Number 2 expressly satisfies the rule and does not require any "special" ruling to be included.
answered Jan 26 at 3:26
Draco-SDraco-S
11
$endgroup$
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We define things in such a way that they have some practical use, and help us make sense of the world around us. This is exactly how words and concepts are created, and also evolve. For example, we decided to give a name to a class of objects in the sky with similar behavior: 'planets'. These objects form what a philosopher might call a 'natural' class of objects. Having labels for them allows us to talk and think about those objects more easily, helping us with explanations, predictions, doing science, and again making sense of things in general.
But like I said, definitions can evolve: Pluto is no longer considered a 'planet', because after finding out more about our solar system we realized Pluto is in significant ways different from Neptune, Jupiter, Earth, etc. That is, by putting Pluto into different (though still related) class of 'dwarf-planets', we now look at it a little differently.
The same holds for mathematical definitions. For example, we could define 'huppelflup numbers' to be exactly those numbers that can be divided by 17 or by 631 ... but there just isn't much practical use to such a definition, and so we don't.
But the way we define prime numbers has lots of practical uses. For example, with the current definition, we get the nice, clean, result that every number has a unique prime factorization. And it's not just applications within mathematics that matter: prime numbers have tremendous importance for real life as well.
Now, if we were to exclude $2$ as a prime, this would no longer be true. And a bunch of other results would likewise have to be stated in a much more cumbersome way.
And by the way, this unique prime factorization theorem is exactly why mathematicians did exclude $1$ as a prime .. even though originally it was.
So yes, you're right that it is not as if definitions are fixed until the end of time. And maybe at some point in the future we redefine the sets of primes again to also exclude $2$, because doing so will have some other advantages.
However, I wouldn't hold my breadth: the current definition is very nice.
answered Jan 25 at 17:33
Bram28Bram28
62.4k44793
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:43
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault I figured ... It's good you ask these kinds of questions, and hold our feet to the fire. For someone to say: 'but that's just what the definition is!" is really not enough; there are reasons to be made for defining things a certain way in the first place, and sometimes we may want to revisit those reasons and see if they are still most useful.
$endgroup$
– Bram28
Jan 25 at 17:56
$begingroup$
@Segfault I really want to stress the uniqueness property. If you can show that there must be a unique X for every Y, then you show that there is no arbitrary human choice involved. This often means that your X is "as good as it can get" in describing Y. You'll find this a lot. E.g. the invertibility of a matrix A says that for each y there is a unique x s.t. $A x = y$. The fundamental theorem of calculus states that there is a unique antiderivative up to an additive constant, etc.
$endgroup$
– WorldSEnder
Jan 25 at 21:35
$begingroup$
My stochastic geometry Prof would always tell us Definitions, they are the rockstars of mathematics, not theorems
$endgroup$
– nate
Jan 26 at 1:40
$begingroup$
"Planets" has changed far more than just Pluto and some similar older stories. It originally meant "wanderers" and referred to all objects whose position in the sky moved with respect to the fixed stars. The sun and moon were both planets at one time.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Jan 26 at 3:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We define things in such a way that they have some practical use, and help us make sense of the world around us. This is exactly how words and concepts are created, and also evolve. For example, we decided to give a name to a class of objects in the sky with similar behavior: 'planets'. These objects form what a philosopher might call a 'natural' class of objects. Having labels for them allows us to talk and think about those objects more easily, helping us with explanations, predictions, doing science, and again making sense of things in general.
But like I said, definitions can evolve: Pluto is no longer considered a 'planet', because after finding out more about our solar system we realized Pluto is in significant ways different from Neptune, Jupiter, Earth, etc. That is, by putting Pluto into different (though still related) class of 'dwarf-planets', we now look at it a little differently.
The same holds for mathematical definitions. For example, we could define 'huppelflup numbers' to be exactly those numbers that can be divided by 17 or by 631 ... but there just isn't much practical use to such a definition, and so we don't.
But the way we define prime numbers has lots of practical uses. For example, with the current definition, we get the nice, clean, result that every number has a unique prime factorization. And it's not just applications within mathematics that matter: prime numbers have tremendous importance for real life as well.
Now, if we were to exclude $2$ as a prime, this would no longer be true. And a bunch of other results would likewise have to be stated in a much more cumbersome way.
And by the way, this unique prime factorization theorem is exactly why mathematicians did exclude $1$ as a prime .. even though originally it was.
So yes, you're right that it is not as if definitions are fixed until the end of time. And maybe at some point in the future we redefine the sets of primes again to also exclude $2$, because doing so will have some other advantages.
However, I wouldn't hold my breadth: the current definition is very nice.
answered Jan 25 at 17:33
Bram28Bram28
62.4k44793
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:43
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault I figured ... It's good you ask these kinds of questions, and hold our feet to the fire. For someone to say: 'but that's just what the definition is!" is really not enough; there are reasons to be made for defining things a certain way in the first place, and sometimes we may want to revisit those reasons and see if they are still most useful.
$endgroup$
– Bram28
Jan 25 at 17:56
$begingroup$
@Segfault I really want to stress the uniqueness property. If you can show that there must be a unique X for every Y, then you show that there is no arbitrary human choice involved. This often means that your X is "as good as it can get" in describing Y. You'll find this a lot. E.g. the invertibility of a matrix A says that for each y there is a unique x s.t. $A x = y$. The fundamental theorem of calculus states that there is a unique antiderivative up to an additive constant, etc.
$endgroup$
– WorldSEnder
Jan 25 at 21:35
$begingroup$
My stochastic geometry Prof would always tell us Definitions, they are the rockstars of mathematics, not theorems
$endgroup$
– nate
Jan 26 at 1:40
$begingroup$
"Planets" has changed far more than just Pluto and some similar older stories. It originally meant "wanderers" and referred to all objects whose position in the sky moved with respect to the fixed stars. The sun and moon were both planets at one time.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Jan 26 at 3:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We define things in such a way that they have some practical use, and help us make sense of the world around us. This is exactly how words and concepts are created, and also evolve. For example, we decided to give a name to a class of objects in the sky with similar behavior: 'planets'. These objects form what a philosopher might call a 'natural' class of objects. Having labels for them allows us to talk and think about those objects more easily, helping us with explanations, predictions, doing science, and again making sense of things in general.
But like I said, definitions can evolve: Pluto is no longer considered a 'planet', because after finding out more about our solar system we realized Pluto is in significant ways different from Neptune, Jupiter, Earth, etc. That is, by putting Pluto into different (though still related) class of 'dwarf-planets', we now look at it a little differently.
The same holds for mathematical definitions. For example, we could define 'huppelflup numbers' to be exactly those numbers that can be divided by 17 or by 631 ... but there just isn't much practical use to such a definition, and so we don't.
But the way we define prime numbers has lots of practical uses. For example, with the current definition, we get the nice, clean, result that every number has a unique prime factorization. And it's not just applications within mathematics that matter: prime numbers have tremendous importance for real life as well.
Now, if we were to exclude $2$ as a prime, this would no longer be true. And a bunch of other results would likewise have to be stated in a much more cumbersome way.
And by the way, this unique prime factorization theorem is exactly why mathematicians did exclude $1$ as a prime .. even though originally it was.
So yes, you're right that it is not as if definitions are fixed until the end of time. And maybe at some point in the future we redefine the sets of primes again to also exclude $2$, because doing so will have some other advantages.
However, I wouldn't hold my breadth: the current definition is very nice.
answered Jan 25 at 17:33
Bram28Bram28
62.4k44793
$endgroup$
We define things in such a way that they have some practical use, and help us make sense of the world around us. This is exactly how words and concepts are created, and also evolve. For example, we decided to give a name to a class of objects in the sky with similar behavior: 'planets'. These objects form what a philosopher might call a 'natural' class of objects. Having labels for them allows us to talk and think about those objects more easily, helping us with explanations, predictions, doing science, and again making sense of things in general.
But like I said, definitions can evolve: Pluto is no longer considered a 'planet', because after finding out more about our solar system we realized Pluto is in significant ways different from Neptune, Jupiter, Earth, etc. That is, by putting Pluto into different (though still related) class of 'dwarf-planets', we now look at it a little differently.
The same holds for mathematical definitions. For example, we could define 'huppelflup numbers' to be exactly those numbers that can be divided by 17 or by 631 ... but there just isn't much practical use to such a definition, and so we don't.
But the way we define prime numbers has lots of practical uses. For example, with the current definition, we get the nice, clean, result that every number has a unique prime factorization. And it's not just applications within mathematics that matter: prime numbers have tremendous importance for real life as well.
Now, if we were to exclude $2$ as a prime, this would no longer be true. And a bunch of other results would likewise have to be stated in a much more cumbersome way.
And by the way, this unique prime factorization theorem is exactly why mathematicians did exclude $1$ as a prime .. even though originally it was.
So yes, you're right that it is not as if definitions are fixed until the end of time. And maybe at some point in the future we redefine the sets of primes again to also exclude $2$, because doing so will have some other advantages.
However, I wouldn't hold my breadth: the current definition is very nice.
answered Jan 25 at 17:33
Bram28Bram28
62.4k44793
edited Jan 25 at 17:53
answered Jan 25 at 17:33
Bram28Bram28
62.4k44793
answered Jan 25 at 17:33
Bram28Bram28
62.4k44793
answered Jan 25 at 17:33
Bram28Bram28
62.4k44793
62.4k44793
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:43
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault I figured ... It's good you ask these kinds of questions, and hold our feet to the fire. For someone to say: 'but that's just what the definition is!" is really not enough; there are reasons to be made for defining things a certain way in the first place, and sometimes we may want to revisit those reasons and see if they are still most useful.
$endgroup$
– Bram28
Jan 25 at 17:56
$begingroup$
@Segfault I really want to stress the uniqueness property. If you can show that there must be a unique X for every Y, then you show that there is no arbitrary human choice involved. This often means that your X is "as good as it can get" in describing Y. You'll find this a lot. E.g. the invertibility of a matrix A says that for each y there is a unique x s.t. $A x = y$. The fundamental theorem of calculus states that there is a unique antiderivative up to an additive constant, etc.
$endgroup$
– WorldSEnder
Jan 25 at 21:35
$begingroup$
My stochastic geometry Prof would always tell us Definitions, they are the rockstars of mathematics, not theorems
$endgroup$
– nate
Jan 26 at 1:40
$begingroup$
"Planets" has changed far more than just Pluto and some similar older stories. It originally meant "wanderers" and referred to all objects whose position in the sky moved with respect to the fixed stars. The sun and moon were both planets at one time.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Jan 26 at 3:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:43
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault I figured ... It's good you ask these kinds of questions, and hold our feet to the fire. For someone to say: 'but that's just what the definition is!" is really not enough; there are reasons to be made for defining things a certain way in the first place, and sometimes we may want to revisit those reasons and see if they are still most useful.
$endgroup$
– Bram28
Jan 25 at 17:56
$begingroup$
@Segfault I really want to stress the uniqueness property. If you can show that there must be a unique X for every Y, then you show that there is no arbitrary human choice involved. This often means that your X is "as good as it can get" in describing Y. You'll find this a lot. E.g. the invertibility of a matrix A says that for each y there is a unique x s.t. $A x = y$. The fundamental theorem of calculus states that there is a unique antiderivative up to an additive constant, etc.
$endgroup$
– WorldSEnder
Jan 25 at 21:35
$begingroup$
My stochastic geometry Prof would always tell us Definitions, they are the rockstars of mathematics, not theorems
$endgroup$
– nate
Jan 26 at 1:40
$begingroup$
"Planets" has changed far more than just Pluto and some similar older stories. It originally meant "wanderers" and referred to all objects whose position in the sky moved with respect to the fixed stars. The sun and moon were both planets at one time.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Jan 26 at 3:17
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:43
$begingroup$
Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:43
3
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault I figured ... It's good you ask these kinds of questions, and hold our feet to the fire. For someone to say: 'but that's just what the definition is!" is really not enough; there are reasons to be made for defining things a certain way in the first place, and sometimes we may want to revisit those reasons and see if they are still most useful.
$endgroup$
– Bram28
Jan 25 at 17:56
$begingroup$
@Segfault I figured ... It's good you ask these kinds of questions, and hold our feet to the fire. For someone to say: 'but that's just what the definition is!" is really not enough; there are reasons to be made for defining things a certain way in the first place, and sometimes we may want to revisit those reasons and see if they are still most useful.
$endgroup$
– Bram28
Jan 25 at 17:56
$begingroup$
@Segfault I really want to stress the uniqueness property. If you can show that there must be a unique X for every Y, then you show that there is no arbitrary human choice involved. This often means that your X is "as good as it can get" in describing Y. You'll find this a lot. E.g. the invertibility of a matrix A says that for each y there is a unique x s.t. $A x = y$. The fundamental theorem of calculus states that there is a unique antiderivative up to an additive constant, etc.
$endgroup$
– WorldSEnder
Jan 25 at 21:35
$begingroup$
@Segfault I really want to stress the uniqueness property. If you can show that there must be a unique X for every Y, then you show that there is no arbitrary human choice involved. This often means that your X is "as good as it can get" in describing Y. You'll find this a lot. E.g. the invertibility of a matrix A says that for each y there is a unique x s.t. $A x = y$. The fundamental theorem of calculus states that there is a unique antiderivative up to an additive constant, etc.
$endgroup$
– WorldSEnder
Jan 25 at 21:35
$begingroup$
My stochastic geometry Prof would always tell us Definitions, they are the rockstars of mathematics, not theorems
$endgroup$
– nate
Jan 26 at 1:40
$begingroup$
My stochastic geometry Prof would always tell us Definitions, they are the rockstars of mathematics, not theorems
$endgroup$
– nate
Jan 26 at 1:40
$begingroup$
"Planets" has changed far more than just Pluto and some similar older stories. It originally meant "wanderers" and referred to all objects whose position in the sky moved with respect to the fixed stars. The sun and moon were both planets at one time.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Jan 26 at 3:17
$begingroup$
"Planets" has changed far more than just Pluto and some similar older stories. It originally meant "wanderers" and referred to all objects whose position in the sky moved with respect to the fixed stars. The sun and moon were both planets at one time.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Jan 26 at 3:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$2$ is considered a prime because most of the time that turns out to be convenient. $1$ is not considered a prime for the same reason.
That being said, $2$ is definitely the oddest prime.
answered Jan 25 at 17:29
ArthurArthur
115k7116198
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry, I don't understand why it's convenient for two to be a prime.
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:30
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault Almost every single theorem concerning primes or non-primes is a reason why it's convenient. Not a single one of them can be pointed to as the reason (although the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a strong contender), but together they make a compelling argument.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 25 at 17:31
3
$begingroup$
So the oddest prime is even! :o)
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Jan 25 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
@bernard Negative, that'd be Conway's prime $-1$ $ $
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jan 25 at 20:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$2$ is considered a prime because most of the time that turns out to be convenient. $1$ is not considered a prime for the same reason.
That being said, $2$ is definitely the oddest prime.
answered Jan 25 at 17:29
ArthurArthur
115k7116198
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry, I don't understand why it's convenient for two to be a prime.
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:30
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault Almost every single theorem concerning primes or non-primes is a reason why it's convenient. Not a single one of them can be pointed to as the reason (although the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a strong contender), but together they make a compelling argument.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 25 at 17:31
3
$begingroup$
So the oddest prime is even! :o)
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Jan 25 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
@bernard Negative, that'd be Conway's prime $-1$ $ $
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jan 25 at 20:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$2$ is considered a prime because most of the time that turns out to be convenient. $1$ is not considered a prime for the same reason.
That being said, $2$ is definitely the oddest prime.
answered Jan 25 at 17:29
ArthurArthur
115k7116198
$endgroup$
$2$ is considered a prime because most of the time that turns out to be convenient. $1$ is not considered a prime for the same reason.
That being said, $2$ is definitely the oddest prime.
answered Jan 25 at 17:29
ArthurArthur
115k7116198
answered Jan 25 at 17:29
ArthurArthur
115k7116198
answered Jan 25 at 17:29
ArthurArthur
115k7116198
answered Jan 25 at 17:29
ArthurArthur
115k7116198
115k7116198
$begingroup$
Sorry, I don't understand why it's convenient for two to be a prime.
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:30
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault Almost every single theorem concerning primes or non-primes is a reason why it's convenient. Not a single one of them can be pointed to as the reason (although the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a strong contender), but together they make a compelling argument.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 25 at 17:31
3
$begingroup$
So the oddest prime is even! :o)
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Jan 25 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
@bernard Negative, that'd be Conway's prime $-1$ $ $
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jan 25 at 20:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sorry, I don't understand why it's convenient for two to be a prime.
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:30
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault Almost every single theorem concerning primes or non-primes is a reason why it's convenient. Not a single one of them can be pointed to as the reason (although the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a strong contender), but together they make a compelling argument.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 25 at 17:31
3
$begingroup$
So the oddest prime is even! :o)
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Jan 25 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
@bernard Negative, that'd be Conway's prime $-1$ $ $
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jan 25 at 20:08
$begingroup$
Sorry, I don't understand why it's convenient for two to be a prime.
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:30
$begingroup$
Sorry, I don't understand why it's convenient for two to be a prime.
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 17:30
3
3
$begingroup$
@Segfault Almost every single theorem concerning primes or non-primes is a reason why it's convenient. Not a single one of them can be pointed to as the reason (although the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a strong contender), but together they make a compelling argument.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 25 at 17:31
$begingroup$
@Segfault Almost every single theorem concerning primes or non-primes is a reason why it's convenient. Not a single one of them can be pointed to as the reason (although the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is a strong contender), but together they make a compelling argument.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Jan 25 at 17:31
3
3
$begingroup$
So the oddest prime is even! :o)
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Jan 25 at 17:34
$begingroup$
So the oddest prime is even! :o)
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Jan 25 at 17:34
1
1
$begingroup$
@bernard Negative, that'd be Conway's prime $-1$ $ $
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jan 25 at 20:08
$begingroup$
@bernard Negative, that'd be Conway's prime $-1$ $ $
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jan 25 at 20:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may wish to read the 2012 Journal of Integer Sequences article What is the Smallest Prime?, by Chris K. Caldwell and Yeng Xiong. The abstract starts with
What is the first prime? It seems that the number two should be the obvious answer, and today it is, but it was not always so. There were times when and mathematicians for whom the numbers one and three were acceptable answers.
Also, as already basically stated in the comments and other answers, the Introduction says
... whether or not a number (especially unity) is a prime is a matter of definition, so a matter of choice, context and tradition, not a matter of proof. Yet definitions are not made at random; these choices are bound by our usage of mathematics and, especially in this case, by our notation.
I enjoyed reading this article & found it educational. The only thing I have to add to this article & what's already been stated here is that I also believe it's generally good to question things instead of just accepting the status quo because "that's the way it is". During my years tutoring math at university, I had a philosophy of "there's no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer". What I mean is that if the person has made a reasonable effort to resolve it on their own and the question is sincere, it's deserving of a reasonable answer.
answered Jan 25 at 19:19
John OmielanJohn Omielan
2,649212
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks! I'll read it
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may wish to read the 2012 Journal of Integer Sequences article What is the Smallest Prime?, by Chris K. Caldwell and Yeng Xiong. The abstract starts with
What is the first prime? It seems that the number two should be the obvious answer, and today it is, but it was not always so. There were times when and mathematicians for whom the numbers one and three were acceptable answers.
Also, as already basically stated in the comments and other answers, the Introduction says
... whether or not a number (especially unity) is a prime is a matter of definition, so a matter of choice, context and tradition, not a matter of proof. Yet definitions are not made at random; these choices are bound by our usage of mathematics and, especially in this case, by our notation.
I enjoyed reading this article & found it educational. The only thing I have to add to this article & what's already been stated here is that I also believe it's generally good to question things instead of just accepting the status quo because "that's the way it is". During my years tutoring math at university, I had a philosophy of "there's no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer". What I mean is that if the person has made a reasonable effort to resolve it on their own and the question is sincere, it's deserving of a reasonable answer.
answered Jan 25 at 19:19
John OmielanJohn Omielan
2,649212
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks! I'll read it
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may wish to read the 2012 Journal of Integer Sequences article What is the Smallest Prime?, by Chris K. Caldwell and Yeng Xiong. The abstract starts with
What is the first prime? It seems that the number two should be the obvious answer, and today it is, but it was not always so. There were times when and mathematicians for whom the numbers one and three were acceptable answers.
Also, as already basically stated in the comments and other answers, the Introduction says
... whether or not a number (especially unity) is a prime is a matter of definition, so a matter of choice, context and tradition, not a matter of proof. Yet definitions are not made at random; these choices are bound by our usage of mathematics and, especially in this case, by our notation.
I enjoyed reading this article & found it educational. The only thing I have to add to this article & what's already been stated here is that I also believe it's generally good to question things instead of just accepting the status quo because "that's the way it is". During my years tutoring math at university, I had a philosophy of "there's no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer". What I mean is that if the person has made a reasonable effort to resolve it on their own and the question is sincere, it's deserving of a reasonable answer.
answered Jan 25 at 19:19
John OmielanJohn Omielan
2,649212
$endgroup$
You may wish to read the 2012 Journal of Integer Sequences article What is the Smallest Prime?, by Chris K. Caldwell and Yeng Xiong. The abstract starts with
What is the first prime? It seems that the number two should be the obvious answer, and today it is, but it was not always so. There were times when and mathematicians for whom the numbers one and three were acceptable answers.
Also, as already basically stated in the comments and other answers, the Introduction says
... whether or not a number (especially unity) is a prime is a matter of definition, so a matter of choice, context and tradition, not a matter of proof. Yet definitions are not made at random; these choices are bound by our usage of mathematics and, especially in this case, by our notation.
I enjoyed reading this article & found it educational. The only thing I have to add to this article & what's already been stated here is that I also believe it's generally good to question things instead of just accepting the status quo because "that's the way it is". During my years tutoring math at university, I had a philosophy of "there's no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer". What I mean is that if the person has made a reasonable effort to resolve it on their own and the question is sincere, it's deserving of a reasonable answer.
answered Jan 25 at 19:19
John OmielanJohn Omielan
2,649212
edited Jan 25 at 19:26
answered Jan 25 at 19:19
John OmielanJohn Omielan
2,649212
answered Jan 25 at 19:19
John OmielanJohn Omielan
2,649212
answered Jan 25 at 19:19
John OmielanJohn Omielan
2,649212
2,649212
$begingroup$
Thanks! I'll read it
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks! I'll read it
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 20:53
$begingroup$
Thanks! I'll read it
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 20:53
$begingroup$
Thanks! I'll read it
$endgroup$
– Segfault
Jan 25 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An addendum to the other answers:
The number $2$ is actually so special that it often is exluded from consideration. The set of primes with $2$ excluded is often referred to as the set of odd primes.
Imprecisely: We are "lucky" enough that we can describe this set using other accepted terms and expressions, otherwise we might have come up with a new name for this set.
Examples:
"Law of quadratic reciprocity — Let p and q be distinct odd prime numbers" - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic Reciprocity
"If a, b, c is a non-trivial solution to $x^p + y^p = z^p , p$ odd prime, then $y^2 = x(x − ap)(x + bp)$ (Frey curve) will be an elliptic curve" - from Wikipedia page on Fermat's last theorem.
"Let the characteristic of K be different from 2." - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic forms.
answered Jan 26 at 4:00
Gunnar SveinssonGunnar Sveinsson
6115
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An addendum to the other answers:
The number $2$ is actually so special that it often is exluded from consideration. The set of primes with $2$ excluded is often referred to as the set of odd primes.
Imprecisely: We are "lucky" enough that we can describe this set using other accepted terms and expressions, otherwise we might have come up with a new name for this set.
Examples:
"Law of quadratic reciprocity — Let p and q be distinct odd prime numbers" - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic Reciprocity
"If a, b, c is a non-trivial solution to $x^p + y^p = z^p , p$ odd prime, then $y^2 = x(x − ap)(x + bp)$ (Frey curve) will be an elliptic curve" - from Wikipedia page on Fermat's last theorem.
"Let the characteristic of K be different from 2." - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic forms.
answered Jan 26 at 4:00
Gunnar SveinssonGunnar Sveinsson
6115
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An addendum to the other answers:
The number $2$ is actually so special that it often is exluded from consideration. The set of primes with $2$ excluded is often referred to as the set of odd primes.
Imprecisely: We are "lucky" enough that we can describe this set using other accepted terms and expressions, otherwise we might have come up with a new name for this set.
Examples:
"Law of quadratic reciprocity — Let p and q be distinct odd prime numbers" - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic Reciprocity
"If a, b, c is a non-trivial solution to $x^p + y^p = z^p , p$ odd prime, then $y^2 = x(x − ap)(x + bp)$ (Frey curve) will be an elliptic curve" - from Wikipedia page on Fermat's last theorem.
"Let the characteristic of K be different from 2." - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic forms.
answered Jan 26 at 4:00
Gunnar SveinssonGunnar Sveinsson
6115
$endgroup$
An addendum to the other answers:
The number $2$ is actually so special that it often is exluded from consideration. The set of primes with $2$ excluded is often referred to as the set of odd primes.
Imprecisely: We are "lucky" enough that we can describe this set using other accepted terms and expressions, otherwise we might have come up with a new name for this set.
Examples:
"Law of quadratic reciprocity — Let p and q be distinct odd prime numbers" - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic Reciprocity
"If a, b, c is a non-trivial solution to $x^p + y^p = z^p , p$ odd prime, then $y^2 = x(x − ap)(x + bp)$ (Frey curve) will be an elliptic curve" - from Wikipedia page on Fermat's last theorem.
"Let the characteristic of K be different from 2." - from Wikipedia page on Quadratic forms.
answered Jan 26 at 4:00
Gunnar SveinssonGunnar Sveinsson
6115
answered Jan 26 at 4:00
Gunnar SveinssonGunnar Sveinsson
6115
answered Jan 26 at 4:00
Gunnar SveinssonGunnar Sveinsson
6115
answered Jan 26 at 4:00
Gunnar SveinssonGunnar Sveinsson
6115
6115
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Concepts which use prime numbers as objects for study and consideration are learned at a much earlier stage, in acquiring mathematical maturity, than sets. I don't think you mean "group" in the way that word is used in mathematics, but even in the way you do use, it's less useful than the indivisibility definition.
Plainly, there are many primitive concepts for which the decomposition of numbers into products of indivisible factors is telling something about their properties.
And there is the principle that definitions of terms are considered good if the theorems which can be phrased and proven using those terms are as simply-stated as possible.
answered Jan 26 at 2:20
grovkingrovkin
1113
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Concepts which use prime numbers as objects for study and consideration are learned at a much earlier stage, in acquiring mathematical maturity, than sets. I don't think you mean "group" in the way that word is used in mathematics, but even in the way you do use, it's less useful than the indivisibility definition.
Plainly, there are many primitive concepts for which the decomposition of numbers into products of indivisible factors is telling something about their properties.
And there is the principle that definitions of terms are considered good if the theorems which can be phrased and proven using those terms are as simply-stated as possible.
answered Jan 26 at 2:20
grovkingrovkin
1113
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Concepts which use prime numbers as objects for study and consideration are learned at a much earlier stage, in acquiring mathematical maturity, than sets. I don't think you mean "group" in the way that word is used in mathematics, but even in the way you do use, it's less useful than the indivisibility definition.
Plainly, there are many primitive concepts for which the decomposition of numbers into products of indivisible factors is telling something about their properties.
And there is the principle that definitions of terms are considered good if the theorems which can be phrased and proven using those terms are as simply-stated as possible.
answered Jan 26 at 2:20
grovkingrovkin
1113
$endgroup$
Concepts which use prime numbers as objects for study and consideration are learned at a much earlier stage, in acquiring mathematical maturity, than sets. I don't think you mean "group" in the way that word is used in mathematics, but even in the way you do use, it's less useful than the indivisibility definition.
Plainly, there are many primitive concepts for which the decomposition of numbers into products of indivisible factors is telling something about their properties.
And there is the principle that definitions of terms are considered good if the theorems which can be phrased and proven using those terms are as simply-stated as possible.
answered Jan 26 at 2:20
grovkingrovkin
1113
edited Jan 26 at 2:26
answered Jan 26 at 2:20
grovkingrovkin
1113
answered Jan 26 at 2:20
grovkingrovkin
1113
answered Jan 26 at 2:20
grovkingrovkin
1113
1113
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you clarify what definition of the prime number you are using? The one I know is
a natural number that is divisible only by itself and 1
Or a variation of it. Number 2 expressly satisfies the rule and does not require any "special" ruling to be included.
answered Jan 26 at 3:26
Draco-SDraco-S
11
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you clarify what definition of the prime number you are using? The one I know is
a natural number that is divisible only by itself and 1
Or a variation of it. Number 2 expressly satisfies the rule and does not require any "special" ruling to be included.
answered Jan 26 at 3:26
Draco-SDraco-S
11
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you clarify what definition of the prime number you are using? The one I know is
a natural number that is divisible only by itself and 1
Or a variation of it. Number 2 expressly satisfies the rule and does not require any "special" ruling to be included.
answered Jan 26 at 3:26
Draco-SDraco-S
11
$endgroup$
Can you clarify what definition of the prime number you are using? The one I know is
a natural number that is divisible only by itself and 1
Or a variation of it. Number 2 expressly satisfies the rule and does not require any "special" ruling to be included.
answered Jan 26 at 3:26
Draco-SDraco-S
11
answered Jan 26 at 3:26
Draco-SDraco-S
11
answered Jan 26 at 3:26
Draco-SDraco-S
11
answered Jan 26 at 3:26
Draco-SDraco-S
11
11
add a comment |
add a comment |
7
$begingroup$
It would mess up the theory of prime factorisation if $2$ weren't prime....
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 25 at 17:22
28
$begingroup$
Why is $3$ a prime number? It's the only prime divisible by $3$. Shouldn't that be special?
$endgroup$
– saulspatz
Jan 25 at 17:22
3
$begingroup$
A number $n$ is prime when has exactly two divisors : $1$ and $n$ itself. See Euclid's Elements, BK. VII, Def.11 : "A prime number is that which is measured by a unit alone."
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 25 at 17:23
14
$begingroup$
There is nothing special about the ability to be divided into smaller equal parts. Every natural number $n$ can be divided into $n$ groups of $1$.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Jan 25 at 17:25
6
$begingroup$
There are numbers that have the property that they can only be divided by themselves and one. The number $2$ has this property so it is included in the set of numbers that have the property. Why would we discriminate against it?
$endgroup$
– John Douma
Jan 25 at 17:28