Memes

46628 readers

662 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

670

Primes (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

74 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] wischi 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Any examples? Sounds like you mean the reason why one is excluded from the primes because of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

[–] kogasa 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

No, he's right. "For any odd prime" is a not-unheard-of expression. It is usually to rule out 2 as a trivial case which may need to be handled separately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_theorem_on_sums_of_two_squares

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2047029

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2374361

[–] wischi 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not unheard of no, but if you have to rule out two for some reason it's because of some other arbitrary choice. In the first instance (haven't yet looked at the second and third one) it has to do with the fact that a sum of "two" was chosen arbitrary. You can come up with other things that requires you to exclude primes up to five.

[–] kogasa 1 points 2 years ago

Okay? Like I said, it's usually to rule out cases where 2 is a trivial edge case. It's common enough that "for any odd prime / let p be an odd prime" is a normal expression. That's all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I just remember it from numberphile, I don't remember what videos sorry.

[–] wischi 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Wow that was fast I just edited my previous comment and you probably mean "1 and prime numbers" by numberphile with james grime.