• CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    2 may be the only even prime - that is it’s the only prime divisible by 2 - but 3 is the only prime divisible by 3 and 5 is the only prime divisible by 5, so I fail to see how this is unique.

  • EatBorekYouWreck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even vs odd numbers are not as important as we think they are. We could do the same to any other prime number. 2 is the only even prime (meaning it is divisible by 2) 3 is the only number divisible by 3. 5 is the only prime divisible by 5. When you think about the definition of prime numbers, this is a trivial conclusion.

    Tldr: be mindful of your conventions.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, but not really.

      With 2, the natural numbers divide into equal halves. One of which we call odd and the other even. And we use this property a lot in math.

      If you do it with 3, then one group is going to be a third and the other two thirds (ignore that both sets are infinite, you may assume a continuous finite subset of the natural numbers for this argument).

      And this imbalance only gets worse with bigger primes.

      So yes, 2 is special. It is the first and smallest prime and it is the number that primarily underlies concepts such as balance, symmetry, duplication and equality.

      • EatBorekYouWreck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        But why would you divide the numbers to two sets? It is reasonable for when considering 2, but if you really want to generalize, for 3 you’d need to divide the numbers to three sets. One that divide by 3, one that has remainder of 1 and one that has remainder of 2. This way you have 3 symmetric sets of numbers and you can give them special names and find their special properties and assign importance to them. This can also be done for 5 with 5 symmetric sets, 7, 11, and any other prime number.

  • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    The meme works better if it’s 1 instead of 2. 1 is mostly not considered a prime number because a bunch of theorems like the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would have to be reworked to say “prime numbers greater than 1.” However, just because 1 is not a prime number doesn’t mean it’s a composite number, so 1 is a number that is neither prime nor composite.

    • wischi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And how is “even” special? Two is the only prime that’s divisible by two but three is also the only prime divisible by three.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well 2 is the outlier because it’s the only even prime. It might not be “special” but it is unique out of all of the prime numbers.

        • wischi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “even” just means divisible by two. So it’s not unique at all. Two is the only prime that’s even divisible by two and three is the only prime that’s divisible by three. You just think two is a special prime because there is a word for “divisible by two” but the prime two isn’t any more special or unique in any meaningful way than any other prime.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s unique because all the others are odd numbers. This is crazy that you’re trying to argue this.

            • wischi@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Of couse all the others are odd because otherwise they wouldn’t be prime. All primes after three are also not divisible by three… “magic”. The only difference is that there are is no word like “even” or “odd” for “divisible by three” or “not divisible by three”.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                only difference is that there are is no word like “even” or “odd” for “divisible by three” or “not divisible by three”.

                Yep, hence why 2 is unique - there is a word to describe numbers that are divisible by 2, and 2 is the only one of those that is a prime number.

                It seems that you don’t know what the word “unique” means.

    • Chais@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re not prime. By definition primes have two prime factors. 1 and the number itself. 1 is divisible only by 1. 0 has no prime factors.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Commonly primes are defined as natural numbers greater than 1 that have only trivial divisors. Your definition kinda works, but 1 can be infinitely many prime factors since every number has 1^n with n ∈ ℕ as a prime factor. And your definition is kinda misleading when generalising primes.

        • Chais@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Isn’t 1^n just 1? As in not a new number. I’d argue that 1*1==1*1*1. They’re not some subtly different ones. I agree that the concept of primes only becomes useful for natural numbers >1.
          How is my definition misleading?

          • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It is no new number, though you can add infinitely many ones to the prime factorisation if you want to. In general we don’t append 1 to the prime factorisation because it is trivial.

            In commutative Algebra, a unitary commutative ring can have multiple units (in the multiplicative group of the reals only 1 is a unit, x*1=x, in this ring you have several “ones”). There are elemrnts in these rings which we call prime, because their prime factorisation only contains trivial prime factors, but of course all units of said ring are prime factors. Hence it is a bit quirky to define ordinary primes they way you did, it is not about the amount of prime factors, it is about their properties.

            Edit: also important to know: (ℝ,×), the multiplicative goup of the reals, is a commutative, unitary ring, which happens to have only one unit, so our ordinary primes are a special case of the general prime elements.

            • T0Keh@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is multiple things wrong here.

              1. 1 is not a prime number because it is a unit and hence by definition excluded from being a prime.

              2. You probably don’t mean units but identity elements:

              • A unit is an element that has a multiplicative inverse
              • An identity element is an element 1 such that 1x =x1 = x for all x in your ring

              There are more units in R than just 1, take for example -1(unless your ring has characteristic 2 in which case thi argument not always works; however for the case of real numbers this is not relevant). But there is always just one identity element, so there is at most one “1” in any ring. Indeed suppose you have two identities e,f. Then e = ef = f because e,f both are identities.

              1. The property “their prime factorisaton only contains trivial prime factors” is a circular definition as this requires knowledge about “being prime”. A prime (in Z) is normally defined as an irreducible element, i.e. p is a prime number if p=ab implies that either a or b is a unit (which is exactly the property of only having the factors 1 and p itself (up to a unit)).

              2. (R,×) is not a ring (at least not in a way I am aware of) and not even a group (unless you exclude 0).

              3. What are those “general prime elements”? Do you mean prime elements in a ring (or irreducible elements?)? Or something completely different?

              • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re mostly right, i misremembered some stuff. My phone keyboard or my client were not capable of adding a small + to the R. With general prime elements I meant prime elements in a ring. But regarding 3.: Not all reducible elements are prime nor vice versa.

                • T0Keh@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s why I wrote prime number instead of prime element to not add more confusion. I know that in general prime and irreducible are not equivalent.