Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #414499 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-02 21:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-26 01:00 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-02 21:41 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2018-06-03 06:36 -0400
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-03 03:48 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-04 14:00 +0000
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 09:20 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-03 05:03 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-04 08:35 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-04 06:47 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-05 07:44 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-05 06:09 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-05 21:16 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-06 07:31 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 06:44 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-06 14:40 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 13:31 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-06 15:53 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 21:01 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 22:36 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 23:17 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 23:56 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 00:12 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 04:46 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 07:20 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 05:28 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 10:10 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 16:28 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 21:30 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 07:38 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 05:50 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 16:33 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 21:46 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-10 16:59 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-10 21:35 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-11 05:49 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 03:58 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 04:15 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 04:26 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 23:14 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-14 23:57 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 00:24 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 03:13 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 03:25 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 03:44 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 04:09 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 04:37 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 04:43 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:48 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 05:51 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 23:56 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-18 00:23 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 04:00 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-18 09:29 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 23:26 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-20 00:55 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 23:31 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-20 23:49 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 23:57 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 00:08 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 01:34 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 02:14 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 22:51 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-25 01:05 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 23:09 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-26 00:59 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 23:08 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-26 23:32 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-26 23:49 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 01:37 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-27 03:29 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-11 20:30 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 21:20 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 18:32 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-12 21:35 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-14 07:12 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-14 09:10 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-14 16:55 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-14 21:27 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-15 19:01 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-15 20:57 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-17 14:52 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-17 21:29 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-18 19:11 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-18 21:28 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-19 18:57 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-19 22:14 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 18:31 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-20 21:29 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 23:32 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-20 23:50 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-21 07:15 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 05:38 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-21 16:15 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-21 21:22 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-22 18:57 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-22 21:49 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-23 07:41 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-23 07:59 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 09:44 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:02 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 07:19 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 05:28 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 16:30 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 21:36 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 22:49 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 23:20 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 00:05 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 00:35 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:39 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 07:39 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 05:54 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-08 13:33 +0000
Re: Triangles and predicates Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-08 15:37 +0200
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 06:44 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 06:43 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 16:35 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 16:41 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-08 21:51 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:05 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-10 06:48 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0500
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-10 21:39 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 03:09 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 03:56 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 04:13 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 08:08 -0400
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-11 05:16 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Python <python@example.invalid> - 2018-06-06 23:05 +0200
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-06 21:03 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 22:36 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:31 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-25 23:41 -0700
Re: Triangles and predicates mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-26 01:00 -0700
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Triangles and predicates |
| Message-ID | <ebcfc91b-7989-4482-89d3-63df57ef1ed5@googlegroups.com> |
One theory says that sum of angles in a triangle is 180. Another says that "provable" predicte is a correct predicate of AP language. What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles in triangle or that something is "correct"?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 06:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <50d0f15f-79af-66e5-913d-fe00e9c3d114@att.net> |
| In reply to | #414499 |
On 6/3/2018 12:41 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > One theory says that sum of angles in a triangle is 180. > Another says that "provable" predicte is a correct predicate > of AP language. > > What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles > in triangle or that something is "correct"? Have you stopped beating your wife? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question Imagined conversation: -- "How easy is it to change a natural number from prime to composite or from composite to prime?" Not "easy" at all! Impossible! -- "Ah! Then all natural numbers are prime or all are composite." Well, *you* might invent an axiom that says that, but when you do, you won't be talking about natural numbers any longer. You'd probably be literally talking nonsense. But I doubt you'll notice, so go ahead. Some naturals are prime and some are composite, but an individual number doesn't change. One can _change_ _a number_ from a prime number to a composite number, but it would be misleading to suggest one has done the impossible and given 7 another factor, or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry There are models of Euclidean geometry constructed with real numbers. There are models of non-Euclidean geometry constructed with real numbers. They give different answers to the question "What is the sum of angles in a triangle?" They do not contradict one another, no more than different answers to "Is this number prime?" are contradictory when asked of 7 and asked of 6. They are different models. Since you are so determined that Godel's first incompleteness theorem should fail for Peano arithmetic, I will tell you how to do that. Maybe then you will go away. _Take away_ _multiplication_ . Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic if you do that, it will be Presburger arithmetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presburger_arithmetic But, given what your question is, you won't notice the difference, so go ahead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 03:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f4fc3a7-f54a-4812-b2cb-e0ea18f4e59d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414501 |
On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: > On 6/3/2018 12:41 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > One theory says that sum of angles in a triangle is 180. > > Another says that "provable" predicte is a correct predicate > > of AP language. > > > > What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles > > in triangle or that something is "correct"? > > Have you stopped beating your wife? No, I haven't. Now, stop making wise face, puffed halfbrain, you wouldn't even know that GT is a metatheoretical theorem if I didn't tell you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 14:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf3glg$u0f$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #414503 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: >> On 6/3/2018 12:41 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> >> > One theory says that sum of angles in a triangle is 180. >> > Another says that "provable" predicte is a correct predicate >> > of AP language. >> > >> > What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles >> > in triangle or that something is "correct"? >> >> Have you stopped beating your wife? >No, I haven't. So you *still* beat your wife??? Shouldn't you be in jail? (Before responding, read the article Jim pointed out, which you snipped, apparently unread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question ) In the earliest of days it was a simple rule that the sum of all angles of a triangle was 180 degrees. Long distance sailors started noticing something was wrong with that with their navigation. These days, mathematics has been extended beyond ordinary Euclidean geometry which everyone is implicitly familiar with, to more complex math. Just as it was that in the early days, the square root of -1 was considered totally impossible. But now math has been extended in such a way that there is a meaning for the square root of -1, and these days, engineers use that extended math all the time. Not that you would know any of that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ab434e5-0136-4846-9ad0-554a899904f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414612 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 16:00:22 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: > >> On 6/3/2018 12:41 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> > >> > One theory says that sum of angles in a triangle is 180. > >> > Another says that "provable" predicte is a correct predicate > >> > of AP language. > >> > > >> > What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles > >> > in triangle or that something is "correct"? > >> > >> Have you stopped beating your wife? > > > >No, I haven't. > > So you *still* beat your wife??? It's only your conclusion - not surprising, as you're a poor idiot unable to think. I don't have a wife and never had one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 05:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d62e74b0-6796-47f9-a7ce-d3a8d0c78623@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414501 |
On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: > Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum of angles now may be >180. The rules in metatheory are the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 08:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pf3f72$24e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414505 |
On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: > >> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic > > Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: > It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum > of angles now may be >180. > The rules in metatheory are the same. > You have the history wrong. It would be more accurate to say, "It wasn't considered at all, but it is a triangle." A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. But note, by today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 wasn't a prime. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fefdab99-76ca-4473-adcb-fb149281aa41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414608 |
On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: > > > >> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic > > > > Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: > > It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum > > of angles now may be >180. > > The rules in metatheory are the same. > > > > You have the history wrong. No. You have it wrong. > A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, > 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. Right. So, let's return to the subject. What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles in a triangle or that's something is "correct"? > But note, by > today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime > and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 > wasn't a prime. Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. Tomorrow it can be again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 07:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pf60jp$3er$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414610 |
On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: >>> >>>> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic >>> >>> Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: >>> It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum >>> of angles now may be >180. >>> The rules in metatheory are the same. >>> >> >> You have the history wrong. > > No. You have it wrong. > >> A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, >> 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. > > Right. So, let's return to the subject. > What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles > in a triangle or that's something is "correct"? Neither. In both cases, there's nothing that can be meaningfully changed. >> But note, by >> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime >> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 >> wasn't a prime. > > Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. > Tomorrow it can be again. > You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another thing now. There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current meaning prime. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 06:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2865a045-8919-4c57-9aeb-62d0c94cf39e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414687 |
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: > >>> > >>>> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic > >>> > >>> Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: > >>> It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum > >>> of angles now may be >180. > >>> The rules in metatheory are the same. > >>> > >> > >> You have the history wrong. > > > > No. You have it wrong. > > > >> A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, > >> 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. > > > > Right. So, let's return to the subject. > > What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles > > in a triangle or that's something is "correct"? > > Neither. In both cases, there's nothing that can be meaningfully changed. What the hell are you talking about? As long as Euclid ruled, the sum of angles in a triangle was always 180. Now it is not. Nothing was changed? > > >> But note, by > >> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime > >> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 > >> wasn't a prime. > > > > Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. > > Tomorrow it can be again. > > > > You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another > thing now. Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. > There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current > meaning prime. Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the current meaning prime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pf6ur4$j6r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414688 |
On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic >>>>> >>>>> Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: >>>>> It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum >>>>> of angles now may be >180. >>>>> The rules in metatheory are the same. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have the history wrong. >>> >>> No. You have it wrong. >>> >>>> A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, >>>> 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. >>> >>> Right. So, let's return to the subject. >>> What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles >>> in a triangle or that's something is "correct"? >> >> Neither. In both cases, there's nothing that can be meaningfully changed. > > What the hell are you talking about? > As long as Euclid ruled, the sum of angles in a triangle > was always 180. Now it is not. Nothing was changed? I didn't say nothing had changed. However, none of the things that changed where the sum of angles in a triangle (180 for Euclidean, > 180 for spherical, and < 180 for hyperbolic) or what's correct. >>>> But note, by >>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime >>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 >>>> wasn't a prime. >>> >>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. >>> Tomorrow it can be again. >>> >> >> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another >> thing now. > > Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. To be surprised, one has to be aware. >> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current >> meaning prime. > > Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the > current meaning prime. No there was not. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11f58486-e2ba-4934-b503-cc40737c5619@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414753 |
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:20:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic > >>>>> > >>>>> Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: > >>>>> It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum > >>>>> of angles now may be >180. > >>>>> The rules in metatheory are the same. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> You have the history wrong. > >>> > >>> No. You have it wrong. > >>> > >>>> A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, > >>>> 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. > >>> > >>> Right. So, let's return to the subject. > >>> What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles > >>> in a triangle or that's something is "correct"? > >> > >> Neither. In both cases, there's nothing that can be meaningfully changed. > > > > What the hell are you talking about? > > As long as Euclid ruled, the sum of angles in a triangle > > was always 180. Now it is not. Nothing was changed? > > I didn't say nothing had changed. However, none of the things that > changed where the sum of angles in a triangle (180 for Euclidean, > 180 > for spherical, and < 180 for hyperbolic) or what's correct. And, of course, that's because UUUUU!!!!UUUUU!!!! UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!! > > >>>> But note, by > >>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime > >>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 > >>>> wasn't a prime. > >>> > >>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. > >>> Tomorrow it can be again. > >>> > >> > >> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another > >> thing now. > > > > Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. > > To be surprised, one has to be aware. > > >> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current > >> meaning prime. > > > > Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the > > current meaning prime. > > No there was not. Yes there was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 07:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pf8k7h$kk0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414782 |
On 6/5/2018 11:16 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:20:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: >>>>>>> It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum >>>>>>> of angles now may be >180. >>>>>>> The rules in metatheory are the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You have the history wrong. >>>>> >>>>> No. You have it wrong. >>>>> >>>>>> A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, >>>>>> 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. >>>>> >>>>> Right. So, let's return to the subject. >>>>> What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles >>>>> in a triangle or that's something is "correct"? >>>> >>>> Neither. In both cases, there's nothing that can be meaningfully changed. >>> >>> What the hell are you talking about? >>> As long as Euclid ruled, the sum of angles in a triangle >>> was always 180. Now it is not. Nothing was changed? >> >> I didn't say nothing had changed. However, none of the things that >> changed where the sum of angles in a triangle (180 for Euclidean, > 180 >> for spherical, and < 180 for hyperbolic) or what's correct. > > And, of course, that's because UUUUU!!!!UUUUU!!!! > UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!! Are you having a stroke? >>>>>> But note, by >>>>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime >>>>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 >>>>>> wasn't a prime. >>>>> >>>>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. >>>>> Tomorrow it can be again. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another >>>> thing now. >>> >>> Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. >> >> To be surprised, one has to be aware. >> >>>> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current >>>> meaning prime. >>> >>> Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the >>> current meaning prime. >> >> No there was not. > > Yes there was. > Evidence? Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <637e29b6-1d1b-49b9-ac10-7d5d3781ba29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414809 |
On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 14:31:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/5/2018 11:16 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:20:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: > >>>>>>> It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum > >>>>>>> of angles now may be >180. > >>>>>>> The rules in metatheory are the same. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have the history wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> No. You have it wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>>> A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, > >>>>>> 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. > >>>>> > >>>>> Right. So, let's return to the subject. > >>>>> What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles > >>>>> in a triangle or that's something is "correct"? > >>>> > >>>> Neither. In both cases, there's nothing that can be meaningfully changed. > >>> > >>> What the hell are you talking about? > >>> As long as Euclid ruled, the sum of angles in a triangle > >>> was always 180. Now it is not. Nothing was changed? > >> > >> I didn't say nothing had changed. However, none of the things that > >> changed where the sum of angles in a triangle (180 for Euclidean, > 180 > >> for spherical, and < 180 for hyperbolic) or what's correct. > > > > And, of course, that's because UUUUU!!!!UUUUU!!!! > > UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!! > > Are you having a stroke? No. > >>>>>> But note, by > >>>>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime > >>>>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 > >>>>>> wasn't a prime. > >>>>> > >>>>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. > >>>>> Tomorrow it can be again. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another > >>>> thing now. > >>> > >>> Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. > >> > >> To be surprised, one has to be aware. > >> > >>>> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current > >>>> meaning prime. > >>> > >>> Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the > >>> current meaning prime. > >> > >> No there was not. > > > > Yes there was. > > > > Evidence? After yours?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pf9dbq$73r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414815 |
On 6/6/2018 8:44 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 14:31:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/5/2018 11:16 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:20:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: >>>>>>>>> It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum >>>>>>>>> of angles now may be >180. >>>>>>>>> The rules in metatheory are the same. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have the history wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. You have it wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, >>>>>>>> 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right. So, let's return to the subject. >>>>>>> What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles >>>>>>> in a triangle or that's something is "correct"? >>>>>> >>>>>> Neither. In both cases, there's nothing that can be meaningfully changed. >>>>> >>>>> What the hell are you talking about? >>>>> As long as Euclid ruled, the sum of angles in a triangle >>>>> was always 180. Now it is not. Nothing was changed? >>>> >>>> I didn't say nothing had changed. However, none of the things that >>>> changed where the sum of angles in a triangle (180 for Euclidean, > 180 >>>> for spherical, and < 180 for hyperbolic) or what's correct. >>> >>> And, of course, that's because UUUUU!!!!UUUUU!!!! >>> UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!! >> >> Are you having a stroke? > > No. > >>>>>>>> But note, by >>>>>>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime >>>>>>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 >>>>>>>> wasn't a prime. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. >>>>>>> Tomorrow it can be again. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another >>>>>> thing now. >>>>> >>>>> Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. >>>> >>>> To be surprised, one has to be aware. >>>> >>>>>> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current >>>>>> meaning prime. >>>>> >>>>> Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the >>>>> current meaning prime. >>>> >>>> No there was not. >>> >>> Yes there was. >>> >> >> Evidence? > > After yours? > Evidence of what? That some considered 1 a prime? "This begins to change when Stevin showed how to calculate with decimal real numbers in 1585, bringing on a confused period in which some held unity to be a prime and others did not."[1] That by the current definition of prime, 1 isn't a prime? A prime number (or prime integer, often simply called a "prime" for short) is a positive integer p>1 that has no positive integer divisors other than 1 and p itself.[2] Clearly 1 is not greater than 1, so 1 is not a prime. That 1 wouldn't be a prime by the current definition back then? 1 wasn't greater than 1 back then, so 1 still wasn't a prime by the current definition. Your turn. Martin Shobe [1] page 2 from https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL15/Caldwell1/cald5.pdf [2] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <955ea273-69fa-4148-bbbd-4e41b65ec55e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414839 |
On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 21:40:49 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/6/2018 8:44 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 14:31:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/5/2018 11:16 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:20:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/3/2018 7:03 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 June 2018 12:36:59 UTC+2, Jim Burns wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Of course, then Peano arithmetic won't be Peano arithmetic > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Take a look on a spherical triangle. That's all the wisdom: > >>>>>>>>> It WASN'T a triangle, but now it IS a triangle, so the sum > >>>>>>>>> of angles now may be >180. > >>>>>>>>> The rules in metatheory are the same. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You have the history wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No. You have it wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A better example for what you want would be the fact that at one point, > >>>>>>>> 1, was considered a prime. Sometimes definition change. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Right. So, let's return to the subject. > >>>>>>> What do you think is easier to change? The sum of angles > >>>>>>> in a triangle or that's something is "correct"? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Neither. In both cases, there's nothing that can be meaningfully changed. > >>>>> > >>>>> What the hell are you talking about? > >>>>> As long as Euclid ruled, the sum of angles in a triangle > >>>>> was always 180. Now it is not. Nothing was changed? > >>>> > >>>> I didn't say nothing had changed. However, none of the things that > >>>> changed where the sum of angles in a triangle (180 for Euclidean, > 180 > >>>> for spherical, and < 180 for hyperbolic) or what's correct. > >>> > >>> And, of course, that's because UUUUU!!!!UUUUU!!!! > >>> UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!! > >> > >> Are you having a stroke? > > > > No. > > > >>>>>>>> But note, by > >>>>>>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime > >>>>>>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 > >>>>>>>> wasn't a prime. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. > >>>>>>> Tomorrow it can be again. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another > >>>>>> thing now. > >>>>> > >>>>> Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. > >>>> > >>>> To be surprised, one has to be aware. > >>>> > >>>>>> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current > >>>>>> meaning prime. > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the > >>>>> current meaning prime. > >>>> > >>>> No there was not. > >>> > >>> Yes there was. > >>> > >> > >> Evidence? > > > > After yours? > > > > Evidence of what? That some considered 1 a prime? > > "This begins to change when Stevin showed how to calculate with decimal > real numbers in 1585, bringing on a confused period in which some held > unity to be a prime and others did not."[1] > > That by the current definition of prime, 1 isn't a prime? > > A prime number (or prime integer, often simply called a "prime" for > short) is a positive integer p>1 that has no positive integer divisors > other than 1 and p itself.[2] > > Clearly 1 is not greater than 1, so 1 is not a prime. Unfortunately, there was a time when current definition was different. So, of course there was a time 1 was prime given the current meaning prime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pf9hk8$3e0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414844 |
On 6/6/2018 3:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 21:40:49 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/6/2018 8:44 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 14:31:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2018 11:16 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:20:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> But note, by >>>>>>>>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime >>>>>>>>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 >>>>>>>>>> wasn't a prime. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow it can be again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another >>>>>>>> thing now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. >>>>>> >>>>>> To be surprised, one has to be aware. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current >>>>>>>> meaning prime. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the >>>>>>> current meaning prime. >>>>>> >>>>>> No there was not. >>>>> >>>>> Yes there was. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Evidence? >>> >>> After yours? >>> >> >> Evidence of what? That some considered 1 a prime? >> >> "This begins to change when Stevin showed how to calculate with decimal >> real numbers in 1585, bringing on a confused period in which some held >> unity to be a prime and others did not."[1] >> >> That by the current definition of prime, 1 isn't a prime? >> >> A prime number (or prime integer, often simply called a "prime" for >> short) is a positive integer p>1 that has no positive integer divisors >> other than 1 and p itself.[2] >> >> Clearly 1 is not greater than 1, so 1 is not a prime. > > Unfortunately, there was a time when current definition > was different. So, of course there was a time 1 was prime > given the current meaning prime. No there wasn't. The current definition is the definition now, not the definition then. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 21:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e85bd0c2-d414-4071-a524-eb3e04b441c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414847 |
On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 22:53:35 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/6/2018 3:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 21:40:49 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/6/2018 8:44 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 14:31:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/5/2018 11:16 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:20:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> But note, by > >>>>>>>>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime > >>>>>>>>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 > >>>>>>>>>> wasn't a prime. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow it can be again. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another > >>>>>>>> thing now. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To be surprised, one has to be aware. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current > >>>>>>>> meaning prime. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the > >>>>>>> current meaning prime. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No there was not. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes there was. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Evidence? > >>> > >>> After yours? > >>> > >> > >> Evidence of what? That some considered 1 a prime? > >> > >> "This begins to change when Stevin showed how to calculate with decimal > >> real numbers in 1585, bringing on a confused period in which some held > >> unity to be a prime and others did not."[1] > >> > >> That by the current definition of prime, 1 isn't a prime? > >> > >> A prime number (or prime integer, often simply called a "prime" for > >> short) is a positive integer p>1 that has no positive integer divisors > >> other than 1 and p itself.[2] > >> > >> Clearly 1 is not greater than 1, so 1 is not a prime. > > > > Unfortunately, there was a time when current definition > > was different. So, of course there was a time 1 was prime > > given the current meaning prime. > > No there wasn't. The current definition is the definition now, not the > definition then. And, unfortunately, there was a time when 1 was a prime according to definition now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <abac0577-dd0c-411f-9f47-7aae1ed17475@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414886 |
Den torsdag 7 juni 2018 kl. 06:01:54 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 22:53:35 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > On 6/6/2018 3:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 21:40:49 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >> On 6/6/2018 8:44 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>> On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 14:31:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >>>> On 6/5/2018 11:16 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:20:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >>>>>> On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> But note, by > > >>>>>>>>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime > > >>>>>>>>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 > > >>>>>>>>>> wasn't a prime. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. > > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow it can be again. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another > > >>>>>>>> thing now. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> To be surprised, one has to be aware. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current > > >>>>>>>> meaning prime. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the > > >>>>>>> current meaning prime. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> No there was not. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes there was. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Evidence? > > >>> > > >>> After yours? > > >>> > > >> > > >> Evidence of what? That some considered 1 a prime? > > >> > > >> "This begins to change when Stevin showed how to calculate with decimal > > >> real numbers in 1585, bringing on a confused period in which some held > > >> unity to be a prime and others did not."[1] > > >> > > >> That by the current definition of prime, 1 isn't a prime? > > >> > > >> A prime number (or prime integer, often simply called a "prime" for > > >> short) is a positive integer p>1 that has no positive integer divisors > > >> other than 1 and p itself.[2] > > >> > > >> Clearly 1 is not greater than 1, so 1 is not a prime. > > > > > > Unfortunately, there was a time when current definition > > > was different. So, of course there was a time 1 was prime > > > given the current meaning prime. > > > > No there wasn't. The current definition is the definition now, not the > > definition then. > > > And, unfortunately, there was a time when 1 was a prime > according to definition now. No there wasn't, because the current definition excludes units, 1 is a unit, ergo by modern definition, 1 could never be prime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 23:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23d59ba6-49b9-4ad2-8467-64d64efa7aae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414890 |
On Thursday, 7 June 2018 07:37:03 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den torsdag 7 juni 2018 kl. 06:01:54 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 22:53:35 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > On 6/6/2018 3:31 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 21:40:49 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > >> On 6/6/2018 8:44 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>> On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 14:31:53 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > >>>> On 6/5/2018 11:16 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 23:20:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > >>>>>> On 6/5/2018 8:09 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:44:48 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> On 6/4/2018 8:47 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:35:36 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> But note, by > > > >>>>>>>>>> today's definition of prime, there was never a point where 1 was a prime > > > >>>>>>>>>> and by the old definition of prime, there will never be a point where 1 > > > >>>>>>>>>> wasn't a prime. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. > > > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow it can be again. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> You're equivocating. "Prime" meant one thing at one time and another > > > >>>>>>>> thing now. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Things change. A mathematician can be surprised. Not me. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> To be surprised, one has to be aware. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> There was never a time that 1 was a prime given the current > > > >>>>>>>> meaning prime. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Of course theyre was a time 1 was prime given the > > > >>>>>>> current meaning prime. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> No there was not. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Yes there was. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Evidence? > > > >>> > > > >>> After yours? > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Evidence of what? That some considered 1 a prime? > > > >> > > > >> "This begins to change when Stevin showed how to calculate with decimal > > > >> real numbers in 1585, bringing on a confused period in which some held > > > >> unity to be a prime and others did not."[1] > > > >> > > > >> That by the current definition of prime, 1 isn't a prime? > > > >> > > > >> A prime number (or prime integer, often simply called a "prime" for > > > >> short) is a positive integer p>1 that has no positive integer divisors > > > >> other than 1 and p itself.[2] > > > >> > > > >> Clearly 1 is not greater than 1, so 1 is not a prime. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, there was a time when current definition > > > > was different. So, of course there was a time 1 was prime > > > > given the current meaning prime. > > > > > > No there wasn't. The current definition is the definition now, not the > > > definition then. > > > > > > And, unfortunately, there was a time when 1 was a prime > > according to definition now. > > No there wasn't, because the current definition excludes units But there was a time when current definition didn't. And befere teaching others, learn the difference between a theorem and its thesis, poor hafbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web