Re: Why 2.00000001?

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:27:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:24:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by rnorman
<rnorman@xxxxxxxxx>:



Bill wrote:
On Mar 21, 1:48 am, rnorman <rnor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Mar 21, 1:17 am, Paul J Gans <g...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 3:07 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20 Mar, 14:53, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Right. I'm tired.
Why is 2.00000001 a prime number and 3.6 is not?

A prime number is an integer that has no integral factors but itself
and 1, and an integer is a number that is not a fraction.

So neither of the numbers you have presented can be a prime number.
Lets refine your definition.
"A prime number is a *number* that has no integral factors but itself
and 1,"
Lets *invent* a symbol. call it "omega".
Lets assume "omega =0". And stick it on the end of every number.
And redefine a prime number.
A "prime number" is any number that increases the value of omega upon
division, by an interger less than itself, and greater than 1".

[examples deleted]

That's wonderful!  But the rules of the game (there *are* rules
of the game) require that you pick another name.  Prime is
already taken and means something else.  

It is sort of like web addresses.  You could try to name
your web site  www.cnn.com but I don't think that would
fly.  At best you'd have generated a bevy of lawyers all
intent on ruining your day.

So call it something else.  

No, get them to call theirs "prime integers". Mine are "prime numbers".

Sorry, there are real numbers but there are no prime real numbers.
Incidentally, if you expand the notion of integer to rings of
algebraic integers, like the Gaussian integers, then 2, 5, 13, and 17
are no longer prime but 3, 7, 11 and 19 are.  At least for the
Gaussian integers.  Each ring has  its own collection of ordinary
primes that can be factored.

You are wrong. Simply and completely wrong.  And you have not yet come
up with a reason  why we should take the slightest interest in the set
of numbers you have defined, whatever they might be called.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you pick up a "hacksaw", say it's not a "screwdriver",
and *somehow* think that proves I am not holding a "socket wrench"?


Nice logic there.

Just as I suspected. You are incapable of showing any reason why the
set of numbers you created (and mistakenly call "prime") has any
interest or significance whatsoever.

Well, at least he's consistent in his posting.

Sure, consistently blood awful :)
--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why 2.00000001?
    ... A "prime number" is any number that increases the value of omega upon ... if you expand the notion of integer to rings of ... You are incapable of showing any reason why the ... "Evidence confirming an observation is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why 2.00000001?
    ... Lets refine your definition. ... A "prime number" is any number that increases the value of omega upon ... if you expand the notion of integer to rings of ... up with a reason  why we should take the slightest interest in the set ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why 2.00000001?
    ... Lets refine your definition. ... A "prime number" is any number that increases the value of omega upon ... if you expand the notion of integer to rings of ... You are incapable of showing any reason why the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Models of the theory of Categories
    ... and the other an operator-preserving map from the elements of ... what you have is a category of algebras ... of type Omega, and a second category of algebras of type Omega', ... ; Rings with unity as ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Largest Set in ZFC?
    ... I think the reason ... We can derive omega from any set that satisfies AoI. ... set satisfying AoI, I see no reason to assume any ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading