Anonymous user
Talk:Count in factors: Difference between revisions
m
→stating that 1 is prime: added a new talk section.
(added a section header to the first comment, so the TOC will appear in the correct location.) |
m (→stating that 1 is prime: added a new talk section.) |
||
Line 26:
: (With Ruby) 'prime' is a library, and its members are Prime, Prime#prime_division, Integer#prime_division, Prime::Generator23 and so on. The 'prime' library is part of the standard library. I am not wanting phantom categories for libraries of the standard library ('prime', 'optparse', 'strscan', 'find', 'securerandom' and so on), so I am removing them. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 16:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
== stating that 1 is prime ==
I marked Python as ''partly incorrect'' (which was later rescinded) that Python marked '''1''' as a prime, not that '''1''' was included in the listing (with '''1''' as a factor). It was the ''marking'' of '''1''' as a prime that was indicated as (partly) incorrect. Other than that, the factors of the integers listed were correct. Nowhere did I indicate that '''1''' shouldn't be in the list. I don't know any other method of flagging an entry to address this situation of ancillary output being incorrect. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Line 33:
:: Yes, thank for correcting the program. I had misgivings about flagging it, but it was a very simple change to correct the error, even though it wasn't part of the task's requirements. (I always appreciate programmers that go the ''extra mile'', even if it's just a few steps.) I think adding a prime counter to various programs would verify that the program works correctly, at least in factoring composites. I'm in the process of adding aforementioned code to the REXX program, with proper handling of unity. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]])
==1 is a prime ... ==
'''1''' ''is'' a prime ... or rather, it was at one time.
The Classical Greeks thought that, and G. H. Hardy was one of last mathematicians to believe that '''1''' was prime.
It was sometime in the 1930's that unity was "officially" declared to not be a prime; in 1938, Hardy
updated (his) definition of a ''prime'' (in his book, ''A Course in Pure Mathematics''), and also
stated that '''2''' is the smallest prime.
For further reading, see the blog [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/why-isnt-1-a-prime-number/ why isn't 1 a prime number] at the ''Scientific American'' site. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 01:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
| |||