

Yeah, whatever...
1f y0u c4n r34d 7h15 y0u r3411y n33d 70 g37 14!d
Gotta run; I've got people to do and things to see...
Don't tell my folks I'm a computer programmer  They think I'm a piano player in a cat house...
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!





Apart from 1 not being a prime, but it is humour so we will ignore that, I prefer...
All Numbers are prime numbers.
1 is a prime, 2 is a prime, 3 is a prime...and so on.

I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]





Dalek Dave wrote: Apart from 1 not being a prime
*feh*
The "must have two distinct divisors" bollocks is new and faddy. It'll soon go away.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!





It was ever thus.

I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]





Dalek Dave wrote: It was ever thus.
Cobblers.
That convention is only stated as a "law" on wikipedia and in areas of set theory that are used by nonMathematicians  and you'll notice that when it's stated it's always termed using the set of "natural" numbers, where noone can agree whether or not zero is a member of the set.
So prime numbers are a subset, which may or may not include one, of a subset of all numbers that may or may not include zero? How very precise and mathematical.
It's one of those "Oh, did you know..." nonfactual conventions that get bandied around, based on the real fact that it is sometimes necessary to exclude one from the set (e.g. to use the arithmetic sieve of Eratosthenes  which is about as far as most proponents of the "law" can go with Maths).
Us Mathematicians don't need halfeducated prats fannying around in our field. If calculations require the inclusion of one as part of a set of primes, then it's included, and the same goes for zero and natural numbers  include what's needed, don't include everything else, but don't bother anyone with spurious "laws" based on the requirements of a subset of all calculations.
A little learning, as always, is a dangerous thing  but it's precisely what wikipedia is made of.





Surely based on the Euclidian definition it is not a prime as it is not factorable?
And anyway, isn't it a special case as it is a unit?

I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]





Dalek Dave wrote: Surely based on the Euclidian definition it is not a prime as it is not factorable?
1=1*1
1/1=1
Looks like it can be factored to me, and that's just using integers and no rounding  1*(0.5 recurring)=1, to whatever number of decimal places you decide to use.
Dalek Dave wrote: And anyway, isn't it a special case as it is a unit?
One is not a unit, one is a number (or, linguistically, a numerical determiner).
The "unit" is an abstract item equal to one of something, which means that it can be any number of anything, e.g. when working with quarters, four is the unit known as the denominator, and 100 is one of the units commonly used when working with percentages (which is why some idiots try to declare that you can't have more than 100%  they can't see that after "one something" comes "more than one somethings").
That one is the number most commonly used as a unit in basic integer arithmetic doesn't mean that it is a unit; it is sometimes used as a unit, just as it is sometimes included as a prime.
You cannot set a "law" stating that it is always either, because it isn't  it's 100th of the percentage unit 100, for example, and four quaternary units (to achieve 1, you need four quaternary units in the numerator if four is the denominator).
The only actual law is that one is not another number, but that same law is true for all numbers.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!





You have to forgive me.
I am an accountant, so I know f*** all about maths!
I also qualified as a physicist, so know only use numbers as a tool.
(Standard rule of physics, if the result is within an order of magnitude of the expectation, it is probably right.)

I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]





Maths is like the English language insofar as lots of people see and/or know aspects of it, and think that that's all there is.
Mind you, it's the same with any subject  accountancy, for example, is just adding up and subtracting, innit?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!





Mark Wallace wrote: accountancy, for example, is just adding up and subtracting, innit?
Yep.
Only difference is, get the maths wrong you just get another piece of paper and do the sum again.
Get the accountancy wrong and you lose money or go to prison!
There is a reason it takes a long time to become an accountant, nobody goes mad quickly, it takes years to get to that level.

I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]





Dalek Dave wrote: get the maths wrong you just get another piece of paper and do the sum again.
Either that or the universe will disappear up its own rectum.
Dalek Dave wrote: Get the accountancy wrong and you lose money or go to prison!
Or, as various crashes have shown, you make a bleeding fortune and get away scot free, while other mugs lose their jobs and homes.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!





Yes, but in step 7, the portion inside each bracket resolves to zero, by the rule in step 1.
Therefore, 2 x 0 = 1 x 0
0 = 0
There's the flaw...





virang_21 wrote: # Step 8: and canceling the a^2ab from both sides gives 2=1
Here your are dividing both the sides by (a^2ab) which is equal to zero (since, a = b).
So the argument involves division by zero which is invalid.
..Go Green..






Ankurm/ wrote: Here your are diving
Strange  what does diving have to do with math?
1f y0u c4n r34d 7h15 y0u r3411y n33d 70 g37 14!d
Gotta run; I've got people to do and things to see...
Don't tell my folks I'm a computer programmer  They think I'm a piano player in a cat house...
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!





It was a typo. Corrected!
..Go Green..






Good Lord. Yet another divide by zero proof.
They should strike medals for the 16,963,285 people who have managed to work one into an equation.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!





If you want to try this with people less likely to rip the flimsy maths to bits then you can go on once you have the 'proof' of two equals one.
Draw a set with two people in it, yourself and the pope for example.
Seeing as how you have already shown that two equals one it now follows that you are the pope.
Tricky one to pull off as you need to find someone with enough knowledge to follow what you are doing, but as soon as they have a little more then you get responses similar to those above.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.





Step 6 can be written as 2a^2  2ab = a^2ab = 0 and that makes all further steps meaningless.
As is this ancient mathematical "exercise."





++
 
 









+
Your word is:
...........

I'll be back in half an hour. I expect this to be solved by then!





aspdotnetdev wrote: 
CodeProject





Good guess! But no. Though, now that you guess a whole word, I'll take the letters from that and apply them:
++
 
 
 O
 







+
Your word is:
trep_d_t_o_
I think you're gonna win this one. And I think I have a new strategy for Hangman... use letters from a word that is the same length as the unknown word.





trepidation
Dont you have work or something?



