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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41fec4f7-648b-4bfb-99a1-4995ccdfa63b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415941 |
On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 9:44:28 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:15:14 AM UTC-7, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > On 6/20/2018 11:29 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > On Thursday, 21 June 2018 01:31:13 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >> On 6/20/2018 12:14 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 01:57:14 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no such rules, you've fabricated them. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of transitive verbs? Wow. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of transitive verbs and you've > > >>>>>>>>>>> fabricated the rules you're mentioning. > > >>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic trash. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> It's a basic English rule and you clearly don't know it. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> It's not and you clearly fabricated it. As > > >>>>>>>>> expected from fanatic trash, of course. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> "A transitive verb needs to transfer its action to something or > > >>>>>>>> someone—an object." > > >>>>>>> That's right. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Finally, you've seen the light. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/transitive-and-intransitive-verbs/ > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> But no rule that "was" modify the phrase "a time" not "current > > >>>>>>> definition". You've fabricated this rule, as expected from > > >>>>>>> fanatic, lying trash. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> That's your fabrication. I never said that you couldn't use was to > > >>>>>> modify "current definition". > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Why are your lies so stupid, fellow software engineer? > > >>>>> Google keeps record. You know it does. > > >>>> > > >>>> Its record agrees with me. You know it does. > > >>> > > >>> No, it doesn't. Quoting (for those too lazy > > >>> to search just above). > > >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The rules of grammar, details elsewhere, agree that the "was" > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified the phrase "a time" not "current definition". > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> So, why are your lies so stupid? > > >> > > >> That doesn't say what you claim it says, liar. You're trying to change a > > >> claim about a specific statement into a claim about all statements. > > > > > > > > > :) > > > Special rules of grammar applying only to one specific > > > (your) statement. > > > > > > Why are your lies so stupid? > > > > > > > It's not my lie. It's yours. > > > > Martin Shobe > > Well Martin, I think we can agree that > you're arguing with a troll, from what > I gather just another equivocator and > it's pretty clear that it really hasn't > written anything relevant to mathematics > or an opinion there, and just has one > howler fallacy about physics, it > appears to be a low-level howler troll. > > The taxonomy of trolls is wide and varied, > here arguing definitions is one marker, > and maintaining the howler another. > > It's pretty clear that you're in the right, > but, not so much that troll would ever > not be in the wrong. > > Troll: do you have an opinion or position > statement? The howling's rather detached > from the subject of the topic. If you're > interested in a book about triangles, we're > pretty much all familiar with Euclid's Elements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Who_Say_Ni https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s35rVw1zskA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 07:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfb7tc$6d5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414886 |
On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > 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. So show that 1 is prime using the current definition (A prime number is a positive integer p > 1 that has no positive integer divisors other than 1 and p itself.) A necessary step is showing that 1 > 1. Good luck with that. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 05:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <acc959ee-eb79-40db-948b-6a2a5cbf3c39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414927 |
On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > 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. > > So show that 1 is prime using the current definition Is? Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not getting it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfc85r$8eg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414931 |
On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> 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. >> >> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > > Is? > Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > getting it. > I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the current definition". It didn't. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 21:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c512af1-132a-4d8c-909a-dd164c349667@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414987 |
On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > > > > Is? > > Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > > difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > > getting it. > > > > I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the > current definition". It didn't. I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant fanatic morons always imagine such things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 22:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8897dabd-b135-41a0-9d2d-e90ae6946d74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415013 |
Den fredag 8 juni 2018 kl. 06:36:30 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >> > > >> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > > > > > > Is? > > > Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > > > difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > > > getting it. > > > > > > > I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the > > current definition". It didn't. > > I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is > to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant > fanatic morons always imagine such things. Just stop with the wrod plays, that is all you do. Play with words in order to avoid having to deal with the fact that you are an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 23:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afc9ede2-9407-4745-b771-457ca416d54a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415021 |
On Friday, 8 June 2018 07:49:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den fredag 8 juni 2018 kl. 06:36:30 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > >> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>> 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. > > > >> > > > >> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > > > > > > > > Is? > > > > Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > > > > difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > > > > getting it. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the > > > current definition". It didn't. > > > > I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is > > to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant > > fanatic morons always imagine such things. > > Just stop with the wrod plays, that is all you do. Isn't it sci.math, poor halfbrain?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 00:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6835e07f-45bc-447b-8c0a-eb71cf94bbb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415027 |
Den fredag 8 juni 2018 kl. 08:20:50 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > On Friday, 8 June 2018 07:49:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > Den fredag 8 juni 2018 kl. 06:36:30 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > > On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > > >> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > >>> 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. > > > > >> > > > > >> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > > > > > > > > > > Is? > > > > > Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > > > > > difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > > > > > getting it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the > > > > current definition". It didn't. > > > > > > I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is > > > to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant > > > fanatic morons always imagine such things. > > > > Just stop with the wrod plays, that is all you do. > > Isn't it sci.math, poor halfbrain? So you admit to doing wordplays
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 00:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <100db568-509d-475d-a377-bead2580ce5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415031 |
On Friday, 8 June 2018 09:05:23 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den fredag 8 juni 2018 kl. 08:20:50 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > On Friday, 8 June 2018 07:49:20 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > > > Den fredag 8 juni 2018 kl. 06:36:30 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > > > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > > > On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > > > >> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > >>> 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. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > > > > > > > > > > > > Is? > > > > > > Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > > > > > > difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > > > > > > getting it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the > > > > > current definition". It didn't. > > > > > > > > I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is > > > > to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant > > > > fanatic morons always imagine such things. > > > > > > Just stop with the wrod plays, that is all you do. > > > > Isn't it sci.math, poor halfbrain? > > So you admit to doing wordplays Zelos, poor idiot, mathematics is one great wordplay.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 21:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3759d5f9-e056-4f5f-8738-3760c0053db2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415035 |
> Zelos, poor idiot, mathematics is one great wordplay. Not at all, it is a strict dicipline where words are only used because it is what we use to communicate, beyond that it has no need for them. >What does English grammar say? Here you are doing it agin, someone brings up you fail basic communication and you are doing like a child and try to go "I know you are, but what am I?" kind of spiel where you use their point and try to shove it in where it makes no sense, and it all begin because you are INTENTIONALLY being obtuse and making communication more difficult in order to avoid having to face the fact you ar WRONG!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfdte1$72u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415013 |
On 6/7/2018 11:36 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition >>> >>> Is? >>> Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is >>> difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not >>> getting it. >>> >> >> I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the >> current definition". It didn't. > > I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is > to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant > fanatic morons always imagine such things. > Why would you need to guess? English grammar has my use of "was" modifying "time" not "the current definition". Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 05:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ae4a37e-e45e-459b-b1e3-c5a8384b3965@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415058 |
On Friday, 8 June 2018 14:39:34 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/7/2018 11:36 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > >>> > >>> Is? > >>> Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > >>> difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > >>> getting it. > >>> > >> > >> I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the > >> current definition". It didn't. > > > > I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is > > to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant > > fanatic morons always imagine such things. > > > > Why would you need to guess? English grammar has my use of "was" > modifying "time" not "the current definition". Where, precisely, did you get this rule of "English grammar" from? Or maybe I'll ask a different way: was there a time when "1 is a prime according to current definition" was true? What does English grammar say?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfe0ji$hvk$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #415061 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >On Friday, 8 June 2018 14:39:34 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> >>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>> >> >>>> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition >> >>> >> >>> Is? >> >>> Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is >> >>> difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not >> >>> getting it. >> >>> >> >> >> >> I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the >> >> current definition". It didn't. >> > >> > I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is >> > to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant >> > fanatic morons always imagine such things. >> > >> >> Why would you need to guess? English grammar has my use of "was" >> modifying "time" not "the current definition". >Where, precisely, did you get this rule of "English >grammar" from? >Or maybe I'll ask a different way: was there a time when >"1 is a prime according to current definition" was true? >What does English grammar say? That statement is ambiguous since it is ambiguous whether "current" means as of now (2018) or as of that past time. You should write this: "Was there a time when 1 wass a prime according to the then-current definition of a prime was true?" That make it clear that you mean the definition of prime in use at that past time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 15:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b1a86a6$0$14320$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #415066 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: ... >> Where, precisely, did you get this rule of "English >> grammar" from? >> Or maybe I'll ask a different way: was there a time when >> "1 is a prime according to current definition" was true? >> What does English grammar say? > > That statement is ambiguous since it is ambiguous whether "current" means > as of now (2018) or as of that past time. > > You should write this: "Was there a time when 1 wass a prime according to > the then-current definition of a prime was true?" > > That make it clear that you mean the definition of prime in use at > that past time. You may have noticed that if Mr Wozniak would make himself clear he couldn't pretend not to appear as an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53a04000-ecf1-4a11-b2dc-aec7ae76c20e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415067 |
On Friday, 8 June 2018 15:37:47 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Michael Moroney wrote: > > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > ... > >> Where, precisely, did you get this rule of "English > >> grammar" from? > >> Or maybe I'll ask a different way: was there a time when > >> "1 is a prime according to current definition" was true? > >> What does English grammar say? > > > > That statement is ambiguous since it is ambiguous whether "current" means > > as of now (2018) or as of that past time. > > > > You should write this: "Was there a time when 1 wass a prime according to > > the then-current definition of a prime was true?" > > > > That make it clear that you mean the definition of prime in use at > > that past time. > > You may have noticed that if Mr Wozniak would make himself clear he > couldn't pretend not to appear as an idiot. Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything else, after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e547e5b-7108-47dd-9661-7bfc7717abc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415066 |
On Friday, 8 June 2018 15:33:44 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >On Friday, 8 June 2018 14:39:34 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> 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. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > >> >>> > >> >>> Is? > >> >>> Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > >> >>> difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > >> >>> getting it. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the > >> >> current definition". It didn't. > >> > > >> > I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is > >> > to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant > >> > fanatic morons always imagine such things. > >> > > >> > >> Why would you need to guess? English grammar has my use of "was" > >> modifying "time" not "the current definition". > > > >Where, precisely, did you get this rule of "English > >grammar" from? > >Or maybe I'll ask a different way: was there a time when > >"1 is a prime according to current definition" was true? > >What does English grammar say? > > That statement is ambiguous since it is ambiguous whether "current" means > as of now (2018) or as of that past time. Of course it is. > You should write this: "Was there a time when 1 wass a prime according to > the then-current definition of a prime was true?" You can tell your fellow idiot Odd what he should do. But I doubt he will obey as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 16:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfesri$u6m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415068 |
On 6/8/2018 8:43 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Friday, 8 June 2018 15:33:44 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> >>> On Friday, 8 June 2018 14:39:34 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is? >>>>>>> Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is >>>>>>> difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not >>>>>>> getting it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the >>>>>> current definition". It didn't. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is >>>>> to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant >>>>> fanatic morons always imagine such things. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why would you need to guess? English grammar has my use of "was" >>>> modifying "time" not "the current definition". >> >> >>> Where, precisely, did you get this rule of "English >>> grammar" from? >>> Or maybe I'll ask a different way: was there a time when >>> "1 is a prime according to current definition" was true? >>> What does English grammar say? >> >> That statement is ambiguous since it is ambiguous whether "current" means >> as of now (2018) or as of that past time. > > > Of course it is. It's also not what I said. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 16:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfet6h$1de$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415061 |
On 6/8/2018 7:54 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Friday, 8 June 2018 14:39:34 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/7/2018 11:36 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>> On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition >>>>> >>>>> Is? >>>>> Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is >>>>> difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not >>>>> getting it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the >>>> current definition". It didn't. >>> >>> I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is >>> to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant >>> fanatic morons always imagine such things. >>> >> >> Why would you need to guess? English grammar has my use of "was" >> modifying "time" not "the current definition". > > > Where, precisely, did you get this rule of "English > grammar" from? By learning to speak English. It's the normal subject-verb-object stuff. The subject is "There", the verb is "was" and the object is "a time". Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 21:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28bcfd83-091c-43f1-909d-349fca8ef4b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415112 |
On Friday, 8 June 2018 23:41:43 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/8/2018 7:54 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Friday, 8 June 2018 14:39:34 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >> On 6/7/2018 11:36 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>> On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > >>>>> > >>>>> Is? > >>>>> Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > >>>>> difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > >>>>> getting it. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the > >>>> current definition". It didn't. > >>> > >>> I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is > >>> to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant > >>> fanatic morons always imagine such things. > >>> > >> > >> Why would you need to guess? English grammar has my use of "was" > >> modifying "time" not "the current definition". > > > > > > Where, precisely, did you get this rule of "English > > grammar" from? > > By learning to speak English. I guess you didn't learn it enough to notice it's not formalized, fuzzy, ambigous and inconsistent. Reassuming, it's a language where thinking people have a great advantage over dumb fanatics. You can't win. Even if it's your native language, not mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91d7e484-8bd6-4ea0-affe-1f67b1ae3886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415124 |
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:51:54 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > On Friday, 8 June 2018 23:41:43 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > On 6/8/2018 7:54 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > On Friday, 8 June 2018 14:39:34 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >> On 6/7/2018 11:36 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:30:41 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >>>> On 6/7/2018 7:28 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>> On Thursday, 7 June 2018 14:20:03 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > >>>>>> On 6/6/2018 11:01 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> So show that 1 is prime using the current definition > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Is? > > >>>>> Well, the difference between "is" and "was" is > > >>>>> difficult, and I'm not surprised you're not > > >>>>> getting it. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm not surprised that you think my use of the word "was" modified "the > > >>>> current definition". It didn't. > > >>> > > >>> I'm not surprised that you imagine that everyone's duty is > > >>> to guess what you deigned to mean and obey it; arrogant > > >>> fanatic morons always imagine such things. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Why would you need to guess? English grammar has my use of "was" > > >> modifying "time" not "the current definition". > > > > > > > > > Where, precisely, did you get this rule of "English > > > grammar" from? > > > > By learning to speak English. > > I guess you didn't learn it enough to notice > it's not formalized, fuzzy, ambigous and inconsistent. > Reassuming, it's a language where thinking people > have a great advantage over dumb fanatics. You can't > win. Even if it's your native language, not mine. Euh, the prime numbers don't include 1. Historically, archaically, obsoletely, there was once considered a set of numbers of the primes including 1 that was labelled primes, but, without qualification that would no longer represent a compatible definition. There's a bulk of number theory about the prime numbers, today, and, these prime numbers don't include 1. These days being correct is considered "winning", mathematically, not some troll's disadvantage gradient because rhetorical trouble-making is trollery, and mathematics is not bait-and-switch. Notice the quadratic sieve's integer points' connections' intersections of the axis intersect the composite integers (1 isn't a composite, either). http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QuadraticSieve.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web