It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by nablator
I agree but did you read the rest of my post ? 17 is also unique for the same reason. Or 113. It's a general property of all primes, that no other prime is a multiple of them. Nothing special with 2 or 3. It is not an exception it is a rule. By definition all primes share this property.
Originally posted by tauristercus
6 + 5 = 11 PRIME ....... and on to infinity (and beyond ! )
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Edit: I'm reading tauristercus's thread on the primes and am informed that one is not considered to be a prime because mathematicians decided that primes must be evenly divisible, uniquely, by both themselves and one. One, surely the cleverest number in the whole number system, flouts that rule by leaving out one step. On that ground, and that ground alone (until I am informed otherwise), it is not considered to be a prime.
tauristercus, why don't you include numbers 2 and 3 as primes in your first diagram? I read that far and came to a screeching halt.
But here's the kicker. The only way they can do that is if one prime, two, does fifty percent of the work.
Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Here's a kicker: there is no "percentages" of the numbers of multiplies of some integers. All are countable, i.e. they are of equal number of numbers in sets. Infinities are weird.
Originally posted by Deaf Alien
If you include 1 as a prime number, it screws up the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.
Why? 2 = 1 x 2 = 1 ^ 2 x 2 = 1 ^ 3 x 2 and so on.
1 is an identity.
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic states that every positive integer (except the number 1) can be represented in exactly one way apart from rearrangement as a product of one or more primes
Originally posted by FTL_Navigator
Is it just me or does that binary representation look like a fractal? Can you post a 3d version, I suspect that it might surprise a few people because to draw a 3d version (visualising as I go) when using 1, 2, and 3 (the first 3 primes)
And just for a laugh through throw fi* into the picture, I think it may twist a few heads if not produce and illusion.