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.
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
647 points (95.0% liked)
Memes
46489 readers
521 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
Exactly, "even" litterally means divisible by 2. We could easily come up with a term for divisible by 3 or 5. Maybe there even is one. So yeah 2 is nothing special.
"Threven" has a nice ring to it now that I think of it.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=BRQLhjytJmY&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Gtfo! 😅
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.
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.
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.
Not sure about how relevant this in reality, but when it comes to alternating series, this might be relevant. For example the Fourier series expansion of cosine and other trig function?
But then it is more natural to use the complex version of the Fourier series, which has a neat symmetric notation
load more comments
(2 replies)
Then you have one set that contains multiples of 3 and two sets that do not, so it is not symmetric.
You'd have one set that are multiples of 3, one set that are multiples of 3 plus 1, and one stat that are multiples of 3 minus 1 (or plus 2)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
2 is a prime though isn't it
Yes, but it's the only even one. Making him the odd man out
It is but if feels wrong
It pretends to be prime and we all go along with it to avoid hurting its feeling.
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.
2 is a prime number, but shit ton of theorems only apply to odd prime numbers, and a lot of other theorems treat 2 as a special separate case, because it behaves weirdly.
2 is a prime number though…..
Is it Just because it’s the only even one?
Often things hold true for all primes except 2. You come across things like "for all non two primes"
Any examples? Sounds like you mean the reason why one is excluded from the primes because of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.
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
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I don't get it, why does adding a hand move to the next prime?
🚨 NERD ALERT🚨
Go define a vector space, nerd.
Go compute the p value of you being cool
Go integrate f(x)= 1/x on the domain (-1,1)
This is meme-ville population: me
Take a hike.
Spoiler: p < 0.05
-
let V be you mom’s vagina, a vector space over the field of pubes. We define my d as a vector such that d is in V. Thus my dick is in your mom’s vagina.
-
In this vector space p values are not defined, but I can assure you that my pp is > 9000.
-
The integral of f(x)=1/x from -1 to 1 does not converge, just like how your father is never coming back from buying milk. The principal value of that integral tho is 0, just like the amount of hugs you got as a kid.
-
math is cool, you just too stupid to get it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Pretty sure that when we plug in a correction factor for the relative age of the Fediverse userbase, "today's lucky 10,000" becomes more like "today's lucky 10 million"
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's just the way the power rangers combined their forces
Two is the oddest prime of them all.
Oh yeah? What about 0? And 1?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Oof, I remember why I didn't study math 😅
But thanks for the explanation
load more comments
(3 replies)
0 has all the factors. Itself and any other number.
Put them in a sieve of Eratosthenes and see what happens.
Spoiler, they aren't.
Yo what about my man 9
7 ate them
9 isnt prime, it's divisible by 7
just not very well...
view more: next ›