Re: prime numbers and African artifact
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan (dmckiern@weber.ucsd.edu)
Sun, 16 Jul 1995 18:50:30 0700
On 14 Jul 1995, Michael Jennings wrote:
] In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.950713210709.20912C100000@weber.ucsd.edu>,
] Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan <dmckiern@weber.ucsd.edu> wrote:
]]
]]] numbers are useful  this result isn't called the fundamental theorem of
]]] arithmetic for nothing.
]]
]] No one is calling the importance of the theorem into question. It
]] is only insofar as how a definition of "prime" affects the felicity
]] of expression that the theorem can here be brought into play. NOw,
]] you didn't give a formal statement of the theorem, but nonetheless
]] look at what you did say, and how you said it. It really comes down
]] to nothing more than a question of where one sticks in "except one"
]] (or the equivalent) in the expression.
]
] The issue is simple: this (and virtually all the other theorems used
] in mathematics that are based upon prime numbers) does not make sense
] if you count one as a prime number. That is why we exclude it.
That is flatout wrong. The theorem itself is not language
dependent. It may be expressed in Urdu, in Quebecois, or in
standard English. It can be expressed in a language in which "prime"
has a meaning that includes 1. The issue is =purely= one of
felicity of expression.
It's always Dark. Light only hides the Darkness.
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan (619) 535  0546
athanatos@UCSD.edu 132.239.147.2 <75013,676>
