Metanet Forums

I was pondering this recently and I was wondering whether it is or isn't. I mean, isn't the definition of a prime number it has do be dividable by only 1 and itself.

Haha, I like how this ended. Like any mathematical "debate", only two posts are required: the question and the answer. It's math.

blue_tetris wrote:Haha, I like how this ended. Like any mathematical "debate", only two posts are required: the question and the answer. It's math.

There was some comedian I'm too lazy to Google at present who commented on this being a notable difference with religion.
(And for some reason, Dane Cook comes to mind, although it doesn't seem like it'd be him.)
The joke was the equivalent of:
"You can't expect to write such ridiculous stuff and expect people not to be skeptical. It's just too easy to make fun of the Bible, but you never see someone pick up a math book and say, 'it says here the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Haha, is that retarded or what? What was this guy on when he wrote this?'"

Thread re-opened, as the topic has now been hijacked to the consistency of math.

I think it is prime as it follows the rule that

1)Must be divisible by 1
2)Must be divisible by itself
3)Must not be divisible by any numbers other than the ones above

There's always exceptions, i dont think there are in math

isaacx wrote:I think it is prime as it follows the rule that

1)Must be divisible by 1
2)Must be divisible by itself
3)Must not be divisible by any numbers other than the ones above

There's always exceptions, i dont think there are in math

Read what Demonz posted. That may be the definition of a prime number that you were taught in fifth grade, but the actual properties common to all other prime numbers do not apply to 1.

So, your opinion is wrong.

Tsukatu wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:Haha, I like how this ended. Like any mathematical "debate", only two posts are required: the question and the answer. It's math.

There was some comedian I'm too lazy to Google at present who commented on this being a notable difference with religion.
(And for some reason, Dane Cook comes to mind, although it doesn't seem like it'd be him.)
The joke was the equivalent of:
"You can't expect to write such ridiculous stuff and expect people not to be skeptical. It's just too easy to make fun of the Bible, but you never see someone pick up a math book and say, 'it says here the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Haha, is that retarded or what? What was this guy on when he wrote this?'"

Thread re-opened, as the topic has now been hijacked to the consistency of math.

I wanna have a dialogue about the consistency of math. Not this prime number shit.

The shortest distance between two points is only a line if you're busy sucking on Euclid's short line, if you catch my drift. If you stop worshipping that one geometry dude and think your own shit for once in your goddamn life, you'd realize that you were a fucking retard before and that the shortest distance between two points is based on manifolds and the curvature of the system. That is to say, your mom's juicy manifolds and the curvature of her ass.

blue_tetris wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:Haha, I like how this ended. Like any mathematical "debate", only two posts are required: the question and the answer. It's math.

There was some comedian I'm too lazy to Google at present who commented on this being a notable difference with religion.
(And for some reason, Dane Cook comes to mind, although it doesn't seem like it'd be him.)
The joke was the equivalent of:
"You can't expect to write such ridiculous stuff and expect people not to be skeptical. It's just too easy to make fun of the Bible, but you never see someone pick up a math book and say, 'it says here the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Haha, is that retarded or what? What was this guy on when he wrote this?'"

Thread re-opened, as the topic has now been hijacked to the consistency of math.

I wanna have a dialogue about the consistency of math. Not this prime number shit.

The shortest distance between two points is only a line if you're busy sucking on Euclid's short line, if you catch my drift. If you stop worshipping that one geometry dude and think your own shit for once in your goddamn life, you'd realize that you were a fucking retard before and that the shortest distance between two points is based on manifolds and the curvature of the system. That is to say, your mom's juicy manifolds and the curvature of her ass.

Hay now.

The main rule of primes: Must have 2 factors.

No more.
No less.

1 only has 1 factor, and therefore does not class as a prime number.

1 a.m. is prime time, baby.

I like how the forums is taking math concepts and ramming them knee-deep into the ass.

1 is no prime number.

It is the super-number!

Oh my God, if one more person replies to this thread with their uninformed guess about 1's status, I'm going to have a fucking aneurysm.

Vell, One's just zis guy, you know?

1 <, ≤, =, ≥, or > pimpmobile.
Problem solved.

I agree with Techno and Drathmobile

Suki - I believe that was George Carlin if I am thinking of the same routine. And yes, it was hilarious, so I know it wasn't Dane Cook.

@Tsukatu; Ricky Gervais, i believe.

If memory serves; "A critic said of me 'He mocks the bible. Too easy.' Well, it shouldnt be easy. You cant do that with a math textbook, can you?" and more along those lines.

Brocerius wrote:@Tsukatu; Ricky Gervais, i believe.

If memory serves; "A critic said of me 'He mocks the bible. Too easy.' Well, it shouldnt be easy. You cant do that with a math textbook, can you?" and more along those lines.

That's the one. Thanks!

no

I think that you will find that prime is actually 7. At least, it is in Australia.

blue_tetris wrote:The shortest distance between two points is only a line if you're busy sucking on Euclid's short line, if you catch my drift. If you stop worshipping that one geometry dude and think your own shit for once in your goddamn life, you'd realize that you were a fucking retard before and that the shortest distance between two points is based on manifolds and the curvature of the system. That is to say, your mom's juicy manifolds and the curvature of her ass.

Lies! The geodesic is a line in many non-Euclidean geometries, though not necessarily a "straight" line, you ignorant redneck. Your pretense that GBLT lines don't exist only serves to further marginalise an unjustifiably persecuted group which has struggled for years to be seen as a legitimate part of the geometric community. By which I mean, part of yo momma's "geometric community". Except for the gay ones, obviously, who will be focusing on yo pappa.

squibbles wrote:I think that you will find that prime is actually 7. At least, it is in Australia.

Canberra isn't Australia.

Canberra is to Australia what One is to Prime Numbers.

SlappyMcGee wrote:Canberra is to Australia what One is to Prime Numbers.

Canberra is not an Australia?
Canberra is not in the set of Australias?
A given country is Australia if it is composed of Canberra and itself?

Tsukatu wrote:

SlappyMcGee wrote:Canberra is to Australia what One is to Prime Numbers.

Canberra is not an Australia?
Canberra is not in the set of Australias?
A given country is Australia if it is composed of Canberra and itself?

The last is absolutely true.

EDIT: A given planet is not Australia if it is composed of Canberra and in the novel "A Fire Upon the Deep" by Hugo Award-winning novelist Vernor Vinge.