On Apr 11, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Alfred Van Hoek wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 1:00 PM, realbasic-nug-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, it's not a prime :-)
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/one.html
Google is your friend in these cases...
Best regards
Peter De Berdt
But the reasoning there is only by excluding 1. There is no answer
given why. Not even when the argument about "unity" is used, it
would give a straight, clear or logical answer. If the exclusion
were to omitted, then 1 is a prime.
That page is a little misleading; it's basically correct, but could
be written more clearly. The short answer is this -- 1 is not a
prime because its exclusion makes the theory cleaner. Longer answers
require precise statements concerning things like primality and
unique factorization and thus are too much work for most people.
Charles Yeomans
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
