## The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

## Should the number 1 still not be allowed to be a prime number?

Yes.
5
56%
No.
4
44%
I do not care at all.
0

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

MagsJ wrote:
Great Again wrote:Yes, the number 2 is also a problem. Either we allow the number 1 to be a prime number again, or we also take the number 2 out of the prime number set and say: "Within the whole positive number set, the number 2 can only be divided by itself and by 1, because there is only one positiv number which is smaller than 2". So then the new definition would be: "A prime number is that integer positive number which is greater than 2 and divisible only by itself and 1". In this case, the prime numbers would begin with the number 3.

This would lead to other problems. So we should leave it at the first definition, so that 1 and 2 are prime numbers: "A prime number is that integer positive number which is divisible by itself and 1".

I guess the Mathematician should know what numbers are applicable to use in what calculations and circumstance, regardless of category.

Mathematicians are the ones among scientists who are the least corrupt (well, some people say that mathematics is not a science at all), but scientists want money, and that is why they have been bought more and more.

Great Again

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

MagsJ wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:What I am curious about is why 1 wasn't considered a "number". That just seems bizarre.

1 was considered a unit, and a number was composed of multiple units, is why.

That had to come from a society far too over-encumbered by semantics.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 2928
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

obsrvr524 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:What I am curious about is why 1 wasn't considered a "number". That just seems bizarre.

1 was considered a unit, and a number was composed of multiple units, is why.

That had to come from a society far too over-encumbered by semantics.

The worship of the number 1 can culturally work like a taboo. Ancient Greeks believed that everything is uniform, abyssal, delimited (everything also in the aesthetic sense). The number 1 means "unit".

Since the conquests of Alexander the Great, the special role of the 1 declined in Ancient Greece.
Last edited by Great Again on Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

Great Again

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Great Again wrote:The worship of the number 1 can culturally work like a taboo. Ancient Greeks believed that everything is uniform, abyssal, delimited (everything also in the aesthetic sense).

I don't see the connection.

Great Again wrote:The number 1 means "unit".

Isn't it more likely that it is the word "unit" that means 1?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 2928
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote:The worship of the number 1 can culturally work like a taboo. Ancient Greeks believed that everything is uniform, abyssal, delimited (everything also in the aesthetic sense).

I don't see the connection.

Great Again wrote:The number 1 means "unit".

Isn't it more likely that it is the word "unit" that means 1?

Yes, it is also the case that children first learn the word "one" and then the number "1". But in the beginning, they can't separate the two. For children, "one" and "1" initially mean the same. It is only later that they come to understand the difference. And that's probably how it was with the Ancient Greeks too - on a higher level of course - in their early times.
Last edited by Great Again on Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

Great Again

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Great Again wrote:It is only later that they come to understand the difference. And that's probably how it was with the Ancient Greeks too, when they started their culture.

I guess I never got to that stage

- Or maybe I am just an old Greek soul.

So what - exactly - is that difference?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 2928
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

You could understand the meaning of the word "one" before you could understand the meaning of the number "1".

Young children know very early what words are, but they separate the numbers - as numbers (and no longer as words) - from the words a bit later, when they begin to count with their fingers (counting, firstly accompanied by speaking, later no longer). When they have learned to count, they are fit for arithmetic and therefore for mathematics lessons - not before.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When a culture begins, it's not much different, but the level is higher (after all, it's mostly adults). The question is, whether and which words are holy or not, and later eventually, whether and which numbers are holy or not. It depends on the conditions of the early culture (which people and which environment?).

The best known of the Ancient Greek mathematicians who have come down to us and who were still mystical/religious about it, is Pythagoras. The time I have just spoken about is even far before Pythagoras.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Great Again

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Great Again wrote:Could you rather understand the meaning of the word "one" or the meaning of the number "1"?

Young children know very early what words are, but they separate the numbers - as numbers (and no longer as words) - from the words a bit later, when they begin to count with their fingers (counting, firstly accompanied by speaking, later no longer). When they have learned to count, they are fit for arithmetic and therefore for mathematics lessons - not before (but before they can already speak the numbers).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When a culture begins, it's not much different, but the level is higher (after all, it's mostly adults). The question is, whether and which words are holy or not, and later eventually, whether and which numbers are holy or not. It depends on the conditions of the early culture (which people and which environment?).

The best known of the Ancient Greek mathematicians who have come down to us and who were still mystical/religious about it, is Pythagoras. The time I have just spoken about is even far before Pythagoras.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Okay - I think i can see where you are going with this -

I see these things a little differently. I know that people think in different ways - I am referred to an an "analytical reductionist".

An analytical reductionist is someone who reduces issues down to their basic concepts. We discern the "conceptual" or the "divine" - the abstract concept involved - the angels, demons, devils, and gods. And we tend to be able to easily understand the simple logic of what we each say as being exactly true or false or just too vague to be certain about. We tend to all agree very much on anything we have much education about. We learn from each other very quickly. And when I read about what people like Plato, Aristotle, and even Jesus have said - it all seems almost too obvious to mention.

Similar things happen with other kinds of minds - they see the "sense" all of the others of "like minds" are trying to explain. They see it instantly - whether it actually makes any real sense or not. That is why observers are chosen by their mind-type. - so they can relay what the intention really was to those concerned with whatever they said (dogs can't see color) - much like a language interpreter but more like a thought interpreter.

So when you ask of the difference between the number 1 and word or concept of one - I have to scratch around to try to discern any difference. To me it turns out to be merely superficial semantics. And now that you have raised this issue of social beginnings I have to believe that with Plato, Hebrews, and the like - it was the same.

I doubt that their society started as one kind of mind that grew through time to become another kind. It seems much more likely to me that in the mix of minds they had when they started, a type of Darwinian interaction caused dominance of a variety of types of cultural norms and ideas. And through time, different aspects of those norms got more or less attention by others who could identify with them. Often they form identifiable groups.

And those groups, like the soap bubbles foaming up from the stream of life's splashing issues, interact and role around each other rising, growing, and at times bursting while they form the world of mankind.

And in this vein of number vs concept and original prime vs new age - to us analytical reductionists - it is all just - "a rose by any other name" ( - but get your bloody words straight).
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 2928
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

1x1=1

Get over it!

WHo gives a fuck anyway. What is the use of Prime Numbers such that this question is important?
Sculptor
Thinker

Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Sculptor wrote:1x1=1

Get over it!

WHo gives a fuck anyway. What is the use of Prime Numbers such that this question is important?

When applied to industry.. i.e. what you can and cannot do with certain numbers, when trying to problem solve or create.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 22337
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote:Could you rather understand the meaning of the word "one" or the meaning of the number "1"?

Young children know very early what words are, but they separate the numbers - as numbers (and no longer as words) - from the words a bit later, when they begin to count with their fingers (counting, firstly accompanied by speaking, later no longer). When they have learned to count, they are fit for arithmetic and therefore for mathematics lessons - not before (but before they can already speak the numbers).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When a culture begins, it's not much different, but the level is higher (after all, it's mostly adults). The question is, whether and which words are holy or not, and later eventually, whether and which numbers are holy or not. It depends on the conditions of the early culture (which people and which environment?).

The best known of the Ancient Greek mathematicians who have come down to us and who were still mystical/religious about it, is Pythagoras. The time I have just spoken about is even far before Pythagoras.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Okay - I think i can see where you are going with this -

I see these things a little differently. I know that people think in different ways - I am referred to an an "analytical reductionist".

Everyone must reduce analytically in his life, but everyone must also observe in his life. This is also how science came into being. According to the theory/practice duality, the purely theoretical (related to philosophy) and the experiment have come into being. If science would not be corrupt through and through in the meantime - like e.g. also politics - then it would still appreciate this duality.

obsrvr524 wrote:An analytical reductionist is someone who reduces issues down to their basic concepts. We discern the "conceptual" or the "divine" - the abstract concept involved - the angels, demons, devils, and gods. And we tend to be able to easily understand the simple logic of what we each say as being exactly true or false or just too vague to be certain about. We tend to all agree very much on anything we have much education about. We learn from each other very quickly. And when I read about what people like Plato, Aristotle, and even Jesus have said - it all seems almost too obvious to mention."

So, as I already indicated above, I am also an analytical reductionist and an observer. What I have written about language development in children is based more on observation than on analytic reduction, but from this one can not conclude that I prefer observation to analysis or even analytic reduction.

obsrvr524 wrote:Similar things happen with other kinds of minds - they see the "sense" all of the others of "like minds" are trying to explain. They see it instantly - whether it actually makes any real sense or not. That is why observers are chosen by their mind-type. - so they can relay what the intention really was to those concerned with whatever they said (dogs can't see color) - much like a language interpreter but more like a thought interpreter.

So when you ask of the difference between the number 1 and word or concept of one - I have to scratch around to try to discern any difference. To me it turns out to be merely superficial semantics. And now that you have raised this issue of social beginnings I have to believe that with Plato, Hebrews, and the like - it was the same.".

Do you have children?

If you observe young children intensively while they are learning the language (including the numbers, which are not separated from the words in the beginning), you will quickly realize that this development and acquisition is anything but superficial (I even believe that this learning is the greatest ever in a human life). Children have the same great "aha" experience when they can separate the numbers from the words. It corresponds to the difference of word and concept, of more concreteness and more abstractness, of more practice and more theory.

obsrvr524 wrote:I doubt that their society started as one kind of mind that grew through time to become another kind.".

I did not say that they "become another kind", I said that they give themselves a culture, that is something that has to do with them and their environment, and that from now on they will shape more differently than before.

A child does not "become another kind" by suddenly being able to separate numbers from words, but this child can suddenly do more, has learned, comes closer to the environment, wants to shape (with) it too.

obsrvr524 wrote:It seems much more likely to me that in the mix of minds they had when they started, a type of Darwinian interaction caused dominance of a variety of types of cultural norms and ideas. And through time, different aspects of those norms got more or less attention by others who could identify with them. Often they form identifiable groups.".

Yes, and that does not contradict what I said.

What do you think about the following statement of Niklas Luhmann: "Evolution is the transformation of improbability of origin into probability of preservation"?

obsrvr524 wrote:And those groups, like the soap bubbles foaming up from the stream of life's splashing issues, interact and role around each other rising, growing, and at times bursting while they form the world of mankind.

And in this vein of number vs concept and original prime vs new age - to us analytical reductionists - it is all just - "a rose by any other name" ( - but get your bloody words straight).

Yes, that is the point. Get your words straight!

Great Again

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Great Again wrote: I am also an analytical reductionist and an observer.

I immediately observed that about you.

Great Again wrote: What I have written about language development in children is based more on observation than on analytic reduction, but from this one can not conclude that I prefer observation to analysis or even analytic reduction.

You seem the type to have written papers or books, have you?

Great Again wrote: Do you have children?

I'll have to ask around on that (I assume you don't mean my wife and her entourage).

Great Again wrote: If you observe young children intensively while they are learning the language (including the numbers, which are not separated from the words in the beginning), you will quickly realize that this development and acquisition is anything but superficial (I even believe that this learning is the greatest ever in a human life). Children have the same great "aha" experience when they can separate the numbers from the words. It corresponds to the difference of word and concept, of more concreteness and more abstractness, of more practice and more theory.

Now I am suspecting you have been referring to a different distinction between 1 and "one" than what I was thinking. Perhaps if you could describe more exactly that distinction.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the population concerning the separation of "Map vs Terrain". I certainly agree that is a very important distinction to acquire - although I am not sure that everyone began with any confusion about that - communication confusions have been seeded, nurtured, allowed to blossom.

Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:I doubt that their society started as one kind of mind that grew through time to become another kind.".

I did not say that they "become another kind", I said that they give themselves a culture, that is something that has to do with them and their environment, and that from now on they will shape more differently than before.

A child does not "become another kind" by suddenly being able to separate numbers from words, but this child can suddenly do more, has learned, comes closer to the environment, wants to shape (with) it too.

We could have a philosophical discussion about that.

Great Again wrote:What do you think about the following statement of Niklas Luhmann: "Evolution is the transformation of improbability of origin into probability of preservation"?

A well stated focus of one aspect of evolution.

Luhmman struck me as one of those myopic global elitists - in his case way over focused and saturated with the extreme details of communication within a society without ever giving regard to the rest of what a society is (of course the big tech Internet world fawns over him). It is like someone describing a human in extreme detail as a complex nervous system - never giving credit to the heart, meat, digestion, and bone (never mind the actual impetus of the life it is). To me he just seemed like another myopic globalist too consumed with glee about one way to get there without regard as to why or whether anyone should - far too much "how", not whole in "what", and not nearly enough "why" - intensively focused on shoveling more bodies into the firebox to get the train to the top of the mountain giving no mind to the cliff just on the other side (I keep feeling like these are spoiled children in need of growing up - but perhaps another topic).
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 2928
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote: I am also an analytical reductionist and an observer.

I immediately observed that about you.

Thank you.

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote: What I have written about language development in children is based more on observation than on analytic reduction, but from this one can not conclude that I prefer observation to analysis or even analytic reduction.

You seem the type to have written papers or books, have you?

Yes, I have.

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote: Do you have children?

I'll have to ask around on that (I assume you don't mean my wife and her entourage).

Stepchildren or all other children - it doesn't matter, it's „only“ a matter of observing them intensively and drawing the right conclusions from the observation. I have always observed a lot and intensively, also and especially children, most of all and most intensively my own children.

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote: If you observe young children intensively while they are learning the language (including the numbers, which are not separated from the words in the beginning), you will quickly realize that this development and acquisition is anything but superficial (I even believe that this learning is the greatest ever in a human life). Children have the same great "aha" experience when they can separate the numbers from the words. It corresponds to the difference of word and concept, of more concreteness and more abstractness, of more practice and more theory.

Now I am suspecting you have been referring to a different distinction between 1 and "one" than what I was thinking. Perhaps if you could describe more exactly that distinction.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the population concerning the separation of "Map vs Terrain". I certainly agree that is a very important distinction to acquire - although I am not sure that everyone began with any confusion about that - communication confusions have been seeded, nurtured, allowed to blossom.

Who said that „everyone began with any confusion about that“?

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:I doubt that their society started as one kind of mind that grew through time to become another kind.

I did not say that they "become another kind", I said that they give themselves a culture, that is something that has to do with them and their environment, and that from now on they will shape more differently than before.

A child does not "become another kind" by suddenly being able to separate numbers from words, but this child can suddenly do more, has learned, comes closer to the environment, wants to shape (with) it too.

We could have a philosophical discussion about that.

Yes, with pleasure

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote:What do you think about the following statement of Niklas Luhmann: "Evolution is the transformation of improbability of origin into probability of preservation"?

A well stated focus of one aspect of evolution.

Luhmman struck me as one of those myopic global elitists - in his case way over focused and saturated with the extreme details of communication within a society without ever giving regard to the rest of what a society is (of course the big tech Internet world fawns over him). It is like someone describing a human in extreme detail as a complex nervous system - never giving credit to the heart, meat, digestion, and bone (never mind the actual impetus of the life it is). To me he just seemed like another myopic globalist too consumed with glee about one way to get there without regard as to why or whether anyone should - far too much "how", not whole in "what", and not nearly enough "why" - intensively focused on shoveling more bodies into the firebox to get the train to the top of the mountain giving no mind to the cliff just on the other side (I keep feeling like these are spoiled children in need of growing up - but perhaps another topic).

Maybe we should discuss that in another thread. Luhmann was first a lawyer, then a sociologist (with a strong urge towards theory/philosophy). I mentioned him in the context of evolution/history, not in the context of child development, although one can also make connections between these two, but that was not my intention.

Now perhaps we should get back to the topic of this thread, although I would actually prefer to continue talking about the topic we are talking about now.

Great Again

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Great Again wrote:What I am concerned with in this topic is the answering of the question and the following straight argumentation, whether and why the 1 should be counted again to the prime numbers or not. So basically I am concerned with logic and with straight arguments. It is - as I already said - similar to the question whether 1 and 0.999... are equal or not (I say: they are not).

The more ridiculous than serious argument that "1 is not allowed to be a prime number, because 1 is divisible only by itself and 1" actually means that 1 is a prime number, because the definition that "a prime number is divisible only by itself and 1" also applies to 1.

But then it is said that every prime number has two different divisors, but the number 1 has only itself. Yes, but the original definition does not say anything about the separability of the divisors of a prime number, but only that a prime number is divisible only by itself and by 1.

The original definition has been changed so that one can claim afterwards that another definition than the valid one is "too complicated". In reality, it's the other way around.

There are no true and false definitions, only more and less useful definitions in relation to a goal. Definitions are tools invented by people for certain prupose. And if the existing definition proves to be less useful than another one, it's only logical to change it.

They obviously changed it, so the only question is why and whether they are justified in doing so.

I can't answer that question because like obsrvr524 I do not understand the purpose of prime numbers.

Nonetheless, this . . .

Wikipedia wrote:If the definition of a prime number were changed to call 1 a prime, many statements involving prime numbers would need to be reworded in a more awkward way. For example, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would need to be rephrased in terms of factorizations into primes greater than 1, because every number would have multiple factorizations with different numbers of copies of 1.[39] Similarly, the sieve of Eratosthenes would not work correctly if it handled 1 as a prime, because it would eliminate all multiples of 1 (that is, all other numbers) and output only the single number 1.[41] Some other more technical properties of prime numbers also do not hold for the number 1: for instance, the formulas for Euler's totient function or for the sum of divisors function are different for prime numbers than they are for 1.[42] By the early 20th century, mathematicians began to agree that 1 should not be listed as prime, but rather in its own special category as a "unit".[39]

. . . seems to be an answer.

Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 5133
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Greetings.

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Great Again wrote:What I am concerned with in this topic is the answering of the question and the following straight argumentation, whether and why the 1 should be counted again to the prime numbers or not. So basically I am concerned with logic and with straight arguments. It is - as I already said - similar to the question whether 1 and 0.999... are equal or not (I say: they are not).

The more ridiculous than serious argument that "1 is not allowed to be a prime number, because 1 is divisible only by itself and 1" actually means that 1 is a prime number, because the definition that "a prime number is divisible only by itself and 1" also applies to 1.

But then it is said that every prime number has two different divisors, but the number 1 has only itself. Yes, but the original definition does not say anything about the separability of the divisors of a prime number, but only that a prime number is divisible only by itself and by 1.

The original definition has been changed so that one can claim afterwards that another definition than the valid one is "too complicated". In reality, it's the other way around.

There are no true and false definitions, only more and less useful definitions in relation to a goal. Definitions are tools invented by people for certain prupose. And if the existing definition proves to be less useful than another one, it's only logical to change it.

If you define a horse as a being that usually lives on the moon (because you may have seen such a being on the moon), then that definition is false (a false definition!), until people agree that it needs to be changed.

Magnus Anderson wrote:They obviously changed it, so the only question is why and whether they are justified in doing so.

I can't answer that question because like obsrvr524 I do not understand the purpose of prime numbers.

Nonetheless, this . . .

Wikipedia wrote:If the definition of a prime number were changed to call 1 a prime, many statements involving prime numbers would need to be reworded in a more awkward way. For example, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would need to be rephrased in terms of factorizations into primes greater than 1, because every number would have multiple factorizations with different numbers of copies of 1.[39] Similarly, the sieve of Eratosthenes would not work correctly if it handled 1 as a prime, because it would eliminate all multiples of 1 (that is, all other numbers) and output only the single number 1.[41] Some other more technical properties of prime numbers also do not hold for the number 1: for instance, the formulas for Euler's totient function or for the sum of divisors function are different for prime numbers than they are for 1.[42] By the early 20th century, mathematicians began to agree that 1 should not be listed as prime, but rather in its own special category as a "unit".[39]

. . . seems to be an answer.

The reasons, which Wikipedia is giving here, are based exclusively on meanwhile created facts in the area of applied mathematics, but have nothing to do with the matter itself (prime numbers). If I change something in an area, then this may be "unfavorable" for this area (e.g. for money reasons, because money is needed for the research), but changes nothing at the problem in itself, and this problem in itself is a purely mathematical one, thus without consideration on whether another mathematical area gets problems through it.

Just ask yourself why a number according to the definition (!) should be a prime number or not a prime number. The old definition for the prime numbers had existed for more than 2000 years.

Great Again

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Hello there (:

Great Again wrote:If you define a horse as a being that usually lives on the moon (because you may have seen such a being on the moon), then that definition is false (a false definition!), until people agree that it needs to be changed.

You can define the word "horse" to mean anything you want. For example, you can define it to mean the same thing that the word "shoe" normally means. Of course, such a choice, like every other choice, might turn out to be a bad choice in the sense that it might lead to less preferrable consequences (for example, people might have more difficulty understanding what you're trying to say and you might end up equivocating because your brain has yet to forget the old meaning and get accustomed to the new one.) But it cannot be true or false in the way that beliefs can. This is because it's not a belief but an act of attaching a concept to a word. You took some word and said "Okay, this is the concept that will be attached to this word from now on." Everyone is free to do that but noone is free from the consequences. It's an act, and like all other acts, it is neither true nor false but rather either good or bad.

And a concept can easily become superfluous, no longer necessary, perhaps because a different, more suitable, one has been discovered. When such a thing happens, one is presented with a choice to preserve the old word-concept association and come up with a new word for the new concept or ditch the old concept, erase the old word-concept association and associate the new concept with the old word. The advantage of the latter approach is that it keeps one's language simple (low word count, low concept count, familiar words) and that it requires less effort. The disadvantage is the increased possibility of being misunderstood and the increased possibility of making logical errors such as equivocation.

I've also noticed a tendency to use the word "definition" to refer to explanations of what a portion of reality represented by some word consists of rather than what the word means. That leads to all sorts of problems in communication.

The reasons, which Wikipedia is giving here, are based exclusively on meanwhile created facts in the area of applied mathematics, but have nothing to do with the matter itself (prime numbers). If I change something in an area, then this may be "unfavorable" for this area (e.g. for money reasons, because money is needed for the research), but changes nothing at the problem in itself, and this problem in itself is a purely mathematical one, thus without consideration on whether another mathematical area gets problems through it.

Just ask yourself why a number according to the definition (!) should be a prime number or not a prime number. The old definition for the prime numbers had more than 2000 years existence.

I'd have to know what the purpose of prime numbers is, though. Why is it bad to define the word "prime number" as "a number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers"?
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 5133
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Hello there (:

Great Again wrote:If you define a horse as a being that usually lives on the moon (because you may have seen such a being on the moon), then that definition is false (a false definition!), until people agree that it needs to be changed.

You can define the word "horse" to mean anything you want. For example, you can define it to mean the same thing that the word "shoe" normally means. Of course, such a choice, like every other choice, might turn out to be a bad choice in the sense that it might lead to less preferrable consequences (for example, people might have more difficulty understanding what you're trying to say and you might end up equivocating because your brain has yet to forget the old meaning and get accustomed to the new one.) But it cannot be true or false in the way that beliefs can. This is because it's not a belief but an act of attaching a concept to a word. You took some word and said "Okay, this is the concept that will be attached to this word from now on." Everyone is free to do that but noone is free from the consequences. It's an act, and like all other acts, it is neither true nor false but rather either good or bad.

And a concept can easily become superfluous, no longer necessary, perhaps because a different, more suitable, one has been discovered. When such a thing happens, one is presented with a choice to preserve the old word-concept association and come up with a new word for the new concept or ditch the old concept, erase the old word-concept association and associate the new concept with the old word. The advantage of the latter approach is that it keeps one's language simple (low word count, low concept count, familiar words) and that it requires less effort. The disadvantage is the increased possibility of being misunderstood and the increased possibility of making logical errors such as equivocation.

I've also noticed a tendency to use the word "definition" to refer to explanations of what a portion of reality represented by some word consists of rather than what the word means. That leads to all sorts of problems in communication.

If there were always only any, "free-floating" definitions, then it would be as if there were also only any, "free-floating" meanings. If neither concepts needed a definition nor words a meaning, then we could not create any theories, do any philosophy, not even talk to each other, because we would then be exposed to something like the "Babylonian confusion of languages". Everybody thinks and says what everybody wants - well and good, but this must also have limits, because one must at least still know the meanings.

Magnus Anderson wrote:
The reasons, which Wikipedia is giving here, are based exclusively on meanwhile created facts in the area of applied mathematics, but have nothing to do with the matter itself (prime numbers). If I change something in an area, then this may be "unfavorable" for this area (e.g. for money reasons, because money is needed for the research), but changes nothing at the problem in itself, and this problem in itself is a purely mathematical one, thus without consideration on whether another mathematical area gets problems through it.

Just ask yourself why a number according to the definition (!) should be a prime number or not a prime number. The old definition for the prime numbers had more than 2000 years existence.

I'd have to know what the purpose of prime numbers is, though. Why is it bad to define the word "prime number" as "a number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers"?

Why is it not okay to define a prime number as it was defined earlier: "a prime number is divisible only by itself and 1", thus without the new addition of "greater than 1"?

I believe that there are extra-mathematical reasons behind it and the "mathematical reasons" are only pretended reasons (sham reasons). There are interests!

Great Again

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:I immediately observed that about you.

Thank you.

I was glad to have seen it (although it tempts me even further into spending way too much time responding on this board - taking away time from my wife, work, and wealth commitment - and drawing me into the world of philosophy - strictly forbidden by my wife ).

Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:You seem the type to have written papers or books, have you?

Yes, I have.

Well don't hold back mate (unless it would reveal something about you best not revealed - as it would in my case - nothing illegal but a lot of fuss, complication, and confusion).

Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote: Do you have children?

I'll have to ask around on that (I assume you don't mean my wife and her entourage).

Stepchildren or all other children - it doesn't matter, it's „only“ a matter of observing them intensively and drawing the right conclusions from the observation. I have always observed a lot and intensively, also and especially children, most of all and most intensively my own children.

If you are merely talking about observing children up close - since university and not counting the childlike adults I too often encounter - then - no I haven't.

Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the population concerning the separation of "Map vs Terrain". I certainly agree that is a very important distinction to acquire - although I am not sure that everyone began with any confusion about that - communication confusions have been seeded, nurtured, allowed to blossom.

Who said that „everyone began with any confusion about that“?

I was just wondering if that was the kind of thing you have been referring to.

Great Again wrote:
Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:A child does not "become another kind" by suddenly being able to separate numbers from words, but this child can suddenly do more, has learned, comes closer to the environment, wants to shape (with) it too.

We could have a philosophical discussion about that.

Yes, with pleasure

It would involve "what it is that defines and distinguishes a thing or group or society or government or..." and related to the Ship of Theseus (an issue my wife simply cannot grasp - or cares to).

Magnus Anderson wrote:There are no true and false definitions, only more and less useful definitions in relation to a goal. Definitions are tools invented by people for certain purpose. And if the existing definition proves to be less useful than another one, it's only logical to change it.

Not so fast, mate.

It is easy to think that merely changing a public definition helps simplify matters, so why not. But society is far more complicated than that - and in some seriously bad ways - to elucidate -
• In the new USA they are even trying to redefine a "domestic terrorist" and "hate speech" as anyone who doesn't agree with the socialist party narrative.
• They have redefined "socialist" as "democrat" - its opposite.
• They tried for years to redefine "equality" as "equity" but recently gave up on that.
• They have redefined "racist" and "white privilege" as "being white" or "relating to anything from white Europe" - obviously a racist definition.
• They have redefined "social justice" as "communist equity".
• They have redefined "Communist Agenda" as "Black Lives Matter".
• They have redefined "Antifa" as "Fascism in the name of Socialist Authoritarianism".
• They have redefined "science" as "socialist preferred agenda".
• They redefined "socialism" as "having compassion for the under privileged" - usually its opposite.
• They seem to have redefined "Darwin's Selection Principle" as "any natural changes" (and anti-God communist agenda).
• They redefined "COVID death" as "dying with any minute trace of COVID-19 detected on the body".
• They redefined "essential worker" as "the privileged class and anyone they favor".
• Long ago they redefined "God" to mean "a conscious all powerful creator, overseer, and manipulator of events".
• They redefined "build back better" as "utterly destroy the USA and its constitution in favor of global domination and authoritarianism".
• They redefine older movie narratives keeping the same title - "rewriting history".
• and I am sure many more - all with deception at heart.
Notice that it the socialists/communists (sometimes including religions) doing all of this altering of words to manipulate the population toward their agenda.

But even getting out of the political manipulating arena there are more redefinings that are based in deception -
• They have redefined "reality" to mean "subjective belief".
• They have redefined "philosophy" to mean "promoting doubt".
• They redefined "particle" in science to mean "any quanta of energy that we can measure" - to justify "Quantum Theory".
• They redefined "bending" to mean "appears to bend from a distance" - to justify Relativity Theory.
• They redefined "time travel" to mean "anything returning to a former state" - to justify funding.
• They redefined "a calculated possibility" as "an existent alternate reality" - to justify Multi-universe Theory.
• They redefined "the limit of a sum" as "the sum" - (1 = 0.999...).
• They redefined "logical" to mean "what a person might normally think".
• All of those pointed out by James - I'm sure there are many more (I am not a science or maths geek).
• And it seems that they have redefined "prime number" so as to justify using favored formula from prominent people.
My point is that all of these redefinings going on in high and far away places are intentional deception to accomplish a justification for an already chosen agenda - having nothing to do with any effort to be more logically correct or simplifying the language - often quite the opposite.

So as to that "why not" - there is a very good reason why not - to reduce social manipulation and deception - especially in science and politics.

Great Again wrote:The reasons, which Wikipedia is giving here, are based exclusively on meanwhile created facts in the area of applied mathematics, but have nothing to do with the matter itself (prime numbers). If I change something in an area, then this may be "unfavorable" for this area (e.g. for money reasons, because money is needed for the research), but changes nothing at the problem in itself, and this problem in itself is a purely mathematical one, thus without consideration on whether another mathematical area gets problems through it.

Exactly.

Redefining words directly implies maleficence that undermines the confidence much needed in society and contributes to global authoritarianism (because no one can do anything on their own any more).

Great Again wrote:I believe that there are extra-mathematical reasons behind it and the "mathematical reasons" are only pretended reasons (sham reasons). There are interests!

I agree.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 2928
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Magnus Anderson wrote:There are no true and false definitions, only more and less useful definitions in relation to a goal. Definitions are tools invented by people for certain purpose. And if the existing definition proves to be less useful than another one, it's only logical to change it.

obsrvr524 wrote:Not so fast, mate.

Notice that it the socialists/communists (sometimes including religions) doing all of this altering of words to manipulate the population toward their agenda.

I believe you wrongly assumed I said something I did not really say.

They have redefined "philosophy" to mean "promoting doubt".

I can agree that there is a significant number of people who are using the word "philosophy" to refer to something that isn't philosophy and/or that there is a significant number of people who believe that bad philosophy is actually good philosophy. I can also accept that such is a consequence of political manipulation. But I cannot accept that there's a significant number of people who define the word "philosophy" to mean "promoting doubt". That does not seem to be the case right now though it may be at some point in the future.

The word "definition" has a specific meaning. It stands for "what the word means" and not "what the word is used to represent in practice". If I use the word "liar" to describe someone who is not a liar, that may not be because I changed the definition of the word "liar", but perhaps because I am blind to the fact that the person in question is not actually a liar. I hope we agree on this. (A lot of people confuse the two.)
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 5133
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Great Again wrote:Why is it not okay to define a prime number as it was defined earlier: "a prime number is divisible only by itself and 1", thus without the new addition of "greater than 1"?

I can't answer that question because I don't know. My position is neutral. But since yours appears not to be -- you think that the word should be define the other way -- I thought it would be nice of you to present your case.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 5133
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Great Again wrote:Why is it not okay to define a prime number as it was defined earlier: "a prime number is divisible only by itself and 1", thus without the new addition of "greater than 1"?

I can't answer that question because I don't know. My position is neutral. But since yours appears not to be -- you think that the word should be define the other way -- I thought it would be nice of you to present your case.

He just did, didn't he?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 2928
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Are you referring to the following?

Great Again wrote:I believe that there are extra-mathematical reasons behind it and the "mathematical reasons" are only pretended reasons (sham reasons). There are interests!

If so, then he didn't so.

He's supposed to explain why he thinks the term "prime number" should be defined to mean "a prime number is a natural number that is divisible exclusively by itself and 1". He didn't do that in the above quote.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 5133
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Are you referring to the following?

Great Again wrote:I believe that there are extra-mathematical reasons behind it and the "mathematical reasons" are only pretended reasons (sham reasons). There are interests!

If so, then he didn't so.

He's supposed to explain why he thinks the term "prime number" should be defined to mean "a prime number is a natural number that is divisible exclusively by itself and 1". He didn't do that in the above quote.

He said it should be that because that was the original intent and definition (for 2000 years) and the changes have been illicit special interest concerns - not to be allowed to reign free over vocabulary.

And who is it that Magjs thinks you are a sock-puppet of?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 2928
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

Why should the term "prime number" be defined to mean "a natural number that is divisible exclusively by itself and 1"?

If a definition is original or merely older it does not follow that it is a better one. (According to some sources, such as Wikipedia, the definition he favors is an older but not an original one. Perhaps he thinks those sources are wrong though that does not seem to be particularly relevant.)
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 5133
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: The Number 1 and the Prime Numbers.

obsrvr524 wrote:
Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:I immediately observed that about you.

Thank you.

I was glad to have seen it (although it tempts me even further into spending way too much time responding on this board - taking away time from my wife, work, and wealth commitment - and drawing me into the world of philosophy - strictly forbidden by my wife ).

Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:You seem the type to have written papers or books, have you?

Yes, I have.

Well don't hold back mate (unless it would reveal something about you best not revealed - as it would in my case - nothing illegal but a lot of fuss, complication, and confusion).

Great Again wrote:Do you have children?
Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:I'll have to ask around on that (I assume you don't mean my wife and her entourage).

Stepchildren or all other children - it doesn't matter, it's „only“ a matter of observing them intensively and drawing the right conclusions from the observation. I have always observed a lot and intensively, also and especially children, most of all and most intensively my own children.

If you are merely talking about observing children up close - since university and not counting the childlike adults I too often encounter - then - no I haven't.

Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the population concerning the separation of "Map vs Terrain". I certainly agree that is a very important distinction to acquire - although I am not sure that everyone began with any confusion about that - communication confusions have been seeded, nurtured, allowed to blossom.

Who said that „everyone began with any confusion about that“?

I was just wondering if that was the kind of thing you have been referring to.

Great Again wrote:A child does not "become another kind" by suddenly being able to separate numbers from words, but this child can suddenly do more, has learned, comes closer to the environment, wants to shape (with) it too.
Great Again wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:We could have a philosophical discussion about that.

Yes, with pleasure

It would involve "what it is that defines and distinguishes a thing or group or society or government or..." and related to the Ship of Theseus (an issue my wife simply cannot grasp - or cares to).

Magnus Anderson wrote:There are no true and false definitions, only more and less useful definitions in relation to a goal. Definitions are tools invented by people for certain purpose. And if the existing definition proves to be less useful than another one, it's only logical to change it.

Not so fast, mate.

It is easy to think that merely changing a public definition helps simplify matters, so why not. But society is far more complicated than that - and in some seriously bad ways - to elucidate -
• In the new USA they are even trying to redefine a "domestic terrorist" and "hate speech" as anyone who doesn't agree with the socialist party narrative.
• They have redefined "socialist" as "democrat" - its opposite.
• They tried for years to redefine "equality" as "equity" but recently gave up on that.
• They have redefined "racist" and "white privilege" as "being white" or "relating to anything from white Europe" - obviously a racist definition.
• They have redefined "social justice" as "communist equity".
• They have redefined "Communist Agenda" as "Black Lives Matter".
• They have redefined "Antifa" as "Fascism in the name of Socialist Authoritarianism".
• They have redefined "science" as "socialist preferred agenda".
• They redefined "socialism" as "having compassion for the under privileged" - usually its opposite.
• They seem to have redefined "Darwin's Selection Principle" as "any natural changes" (and anti-God communist agenda).
• They redefined "COVID death" as "dying with any minute trace of COVID-19 detected on the body".
• They redefined "essential worker" as "the privileged class and anyone they favor".
• Long ago they redefined "God" to mean "a conscious all powerful creator, overseer, and manipulator of events".
• They redefined "build back better" as "utterly destroy the USA and its constitution in favor of global domination and authoritarianism".
• They redefine older movie narratives keeping the same title - "rewriting history".
• and I am sure many more - all with deception at heart.
Notice that it the socialists/communists (sometimes including religions) doing all of this altering of words to manipulate the population toward their agenda.

But even getting out of the political manipulating arena there are more redefinings that are based in deception -
• They have redefined "reality" to mean "subjective belief".
• They have redefined "philosophy" to mean "promoting doubt".
• They redefined "particle" in science to mean "any quanta of energy that we can measure" - to justify "Quantum Theory".
• They redefined "bending" to mean "appears to bend from a distance" - to justify Relativity Theory.
• They redefined "time travel" to mean "anything returning to a former state" - to justify funding.
• They redefined "a calculated possibility" as "an existent alternate reality" - to justify Multi-universe Theory.
• They redefined "the limit of a sum" as "the sum" - (1 = 0.999...).
• They redefined "logical" to mean "what a person might normally think".
• All of those pointed out by James - I'm sure there are many more (I am not a science or maths geek).
• And it seems that they have redefined "prime number" so as to justify using favored formula from prominent people.
My point is that all of these redefinings going on in high and far away places are intentional deception to accomplish a justification for an already chosen agenda - having nothing to do with any effort to be more logically correct or simplifying the language - often quite the opposite.

So as to that "why not" - there is a very good reason why not - to reduce social manipulation and deception - especially in science and politics.

Great Again wrote:The reasons, which Wikipedia is giving here, are based exclusively on meanwhile created facts in the area of applied mathematics, but have nothing to do with the matter itself (prime numbers). If I change something in an area, then this may be "unfavorable" for this area (e.g. for money reasons, because money is needed for the research), but changes nothing at the problem in itself, and this problem in itself is a purely mathematical one, thus without consideration on whether another mathematical area gets problems through it.

Exactly.

Redefining words directly implies maleficence that undermines the confidence much needed in society and contributes to global authoritarianism (because no one can do anything on their own any more).

Great Again wrote:I believe that there are extra-mathematical reasons behind it and the "mathematical reasons" are only pretended reasons (sham reasons). There are interests!

I agree.

Thank you.

You have got your words straight.

Great Again

Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

PreviousNext