TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

On Primes and Pluto

92 pointsby mjsover 11 years ago

11 comments

wbhartover 11 years ago
For the ordinary natural numbers, 1 is the only number which you can invert, i.e. 1&#x2F;2, 1&#x2F;3, 1&#x2F;4, etc. are not integers, but 1&#x2F;1 is. If we take in all the integers, positive, negative and zero, then 1 and -1 are invertible. But things become much more complicated in other number rings. For example, in the number ring obtained by adjoining the square root of 7 to the integers (i.e. Z[sqrt(7)]), there are infinitely many invertible values. For example 3 sqrt(7)-8 is invertible. Its inverse is -3 sqrt(7)-8. But any power of this value is also invertible, so in fact there are infinitely many invertible values in this ring. Anyway, the problem with units (invertible values) is that they divide <i>any</i> number in the number ring (after all, by definition, they divide 1, and 1 divides everything). They therefore aren&#x27;t very useful for unique factorisation (aside: unique factorisation exists for elements of Z[sqrt(7)], though not for every conceivable number ring). Because of this, it is natural to exclude units from being primes.
评论 #7355961 未加载
评论 #7356405 未加载
评论 #7356036 未加载
tolmaskyover 11 years ago
Wow, so many comments from people that clearly didn&#x27;t bother reading the article (all the way through). I suppose its understandable, I too had to fight the temptation to hit the back button and angrily type out &quot;its just a definition!&quot;. Luckily I decided to actually read the whole thing through, notice that the author is quite aware of this, and be treated to a really interesting history of math.
评论 #7356542 未加载
评论 #7357098 未加载
评论 #7358449 未加载
评论 #7362644 未加载
i_c_bover 11 years ago
My favorite &quot;1 not behaving as a prime&quot; example.<p>Here are two simple javascript functions:<p>function f(n,k){ var t = 0; for( var j = 2; j &lt;= n; j++ )t += 1&#x2F;k - f(n&#x2F;j, k+1); return t;} function p(n){ return f(n,1)-f(n-1,1); }<p>If you call p(n) when n is prime, it will return 1. If you call p(n) when n is a prime power (so, say, 4 or 9 or 16), it will return 1&#x2F;power (so p(4) is .5, p(8) is .3333..., etc). If you call p(n) with a number with multiple prime bases (so 6 or 14 or 30 or...), it will return 0.<p>And if you call p(1), it will return 0, NOT 1.<p>In fact, f(n,1) here is a compact (and slow) way of computing the Riemann Prime Counting function: <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannPrimeCountingFunction.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;mathworld.wolfram.com&#x2F;RiemannPrimeCountingFunction.ht...</a><p>Another way to compute this exact same function (given as (8) on that link) uses the famous Riemann Zeta function zeroes, although that is much harder to follow.<p>Now, the behavior of the Riemann Prime Counting function doesn&#x27;t PROVE that 1 isn&#x27;t a prime, which, as noted, is a question about definition. But what it does do is show that, in an extremely important context, a context that seems to be, mathematically, solely about identifying primes, 1 isn&#x27;t behaving like the primes at all.
minikitesover 11 years ago
There&#x27;s a great Numberphile video that walks you through a similar line of explanation: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQofiPqhJ_s" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=IQofiPqhJ_s</a>
sp332over 11 years ago
Seems like the Law of Small Numbers <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Law_of_Small_Numbers" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Strong_Law_of_Small_Numbers</a>
fennecfoxenover 11 years ago
At some level you really shouldn&#x27;t care why 1 isn&#x27;t prime. It&#x27;s not-prime because we defined it that way. 1 has some mathematical properties in common with the numbers we happen to call &quot;prime numbers&quot; and some mathematical properties which are different; in another world we could have called it prime and replaced &quot;the prime numbers&quot; with &quot;the prime numbers greater than 1&quot; in assorted theorems and EVERYTHING ABOUT MATH WOULD BE THE SAME.
评论 #7355841 未加载
shittyanalogyover 11 years ago
Linguistically:<p><i>Prime</i> is a word not a fact of the universe, just like <i>Planet</i> is a word and not a fact of the universe. Those words, unlike most words, have definitions put in place by authorities. The authorities might change the definitions over time as a new definition&#x27;s usefulness exceeds that of an old definition.<p>Practically:<p>It&#x27;s more useful to think of primes and planets as not including their recent ex-members than it is to include them.
评论 #7357836 未加载
benchedover 11 years ago
The problem of 1 not being prime could be easily solved by having a separate term, say &quot;noncomposite&quot; or whatever you like, that means the set of the primes and one.
4shadowover 11 years ago
If you let 1 be prime then you would violate the uniqueness property of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic
deletesover 11 years ago
It is not a prime because every integer greater than 1, must be made by a unique product of prime numbers, or is a prime itself. If 1 were prime, that would not hold true.<p>proof: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_arithmetic" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fundamental_theorem_of_arithmet...</a><p><i>edited</i>
评论 #7356273 未加载
评论 #7357218 未加载
评论 #7355680 未加载
LanceHover 11 years ago
It isn&#x27;t prime by definition.<p>The definition is made for convenience sake based on what it implies. One being prime implies that other primes are evenly divisible by another prime but for some reason that doesn&#x27;t stop them from being prime. So 1&#x27;s primeness would have to be special relative to the primality of the other numbers.<p>Starting the primes at 2 makes all the definitions and implications simple, except for the one caveat that primes start at 2.<p>Either way you&#x27;ll have to make a concession, we choose the one that only has to make it once.<p>The other way around you end up with things like: The square of a natural number is not prime (except 1). The product of two primes is not prime (unless one of them is 1). and so on...
评论 #7356452 未加载