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 | 14 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 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 06:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73115931-cc75-4cef-9ec7-5d19a72b663d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415157 |
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 19:06:00 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > 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. Nobody said they do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfk76f$3fs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415124 |
On 6/8/2018 11:51 PM, mlwozniak@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. It's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out. You must not have been paying attention when you were supposed to be learning. > 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. Funny, but dumb fanatic is a better description of you, so by your statement I'm the one with the great advantage. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 21:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <487316af-9074-4bd0-9c08-3f6dba98cf27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415253 |
On Monday, 11 June 2018 00:03:01 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/8/2018 11:51 PM, mlwozniak@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. > > It's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out. Poor idiot. What you're taking as disadvantage, is really the source of its power. But, of course, you don't even know what these words mean, because your precious math is too primitive for them. > Funny, but dumb fanatic is a better description of you Show it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 03:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a422c146-a33f-4848-af09-b0ed27ae17f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415281 |
Den måndag 11 juni 2018 kl. 06:39:21 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > On Monday, 11 June 2018 00:03:01 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > On 6/8/2018 11:51 PM, mlwozniak@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. > > > > It's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out. > > Poor idiot. What you're taking as disadvantage, > is really the source of its power. But, of course, > you don't even know what these words mean, because > your precious math is too primitive for them. > > > > Funny, but dumb fanatic is a better description of you > > Show it. Trivial 1: You refuse to read actual literature 2: You use various techniques to derail conversations because you cannot have it properly, including but not limited to Equivocation fallacy. 3: Generally refuse to engage in normal conversation. You make it extremely difficult to talk with you because no matter what, you always choose the least probably intepritation and derail everything. 4: WHen evidence is provided you ignore it completely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 03:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <267a8b92-be97-42ae-b4fa-5d7c4990da8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415301 |
On Monday, 11 June 2018 12:09:31 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den måndag 11 juni 2018 kl. 06:39:21 UTC+2 skrev mlwo...@wp.pl: > > On Monday, 11 June 2018 00:03:01 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > > > On 6/8/2018 11:51 PM, mlwozniak@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. > > > > > > It's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out. > > > > Poor idiot. What you're taking as disadvantage, > > is really the source of its power. But, of course, > > you don't even know what these words mean, because > > your precious math is too primitive for them. > > > > > > > Funny, but dumb fanatic is a better description of you > > > > Show it. > > Trivial > > 1: You refuse to read actual literature A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. And, of course, "it's written in BOOKS!" is the most common "argument" of fanatic trash. > 2: You use various techniques to derail conversations because you cannot have it properly, including but not limited to Equivocation fallacy. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash > 3: Generally refuse to engage in normal conversation. You make it extremely difficult to talk with you because no matter what, you always choose the least probably intepritation and derail everything. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash > 4: WHen evidence is provided you ignore it completely. What evidence, poor idiot? You only imagine you provide it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 04:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6811f3e-8d46-4941-99f4-435d75be0b49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415305 |
>A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. And, >of course, "it's written in BOOKS!" is the >most common "argument" of fanatic trash. Not at all, you don't know nor have ever read proper mathematics. If you have not studied it you cannot hope to have anythign valid to say. >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash Not at all, it is extremely easy to show. For example you constantly dragging in politics when it has no connection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 08:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pflone$bv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415305 |
On 6/11/2018 6:56 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Monday, 11 June 2018 12:09:31 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: >> 1: You refuse to read actual literature > > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything else, after all. >> 2: You use various techniques to derail conversations because you cannot have it properly, including but not limited to Equivocation fallacy. > > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything else, after all. >> 3: Generally refuse to engage in normal conversation. You make it extremely difficult to talk with you because no matter what, you always choose the least probably intepritation and derail everything. > > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything else, after all. >> 4: WHen evidence is provided you ignore it completely. > > What evidence, poor idiot? You only imagine > you provide it. Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything else, after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 05:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b70d7ab-8067-48ce-8948-e08b0c6d1b01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415320 |
On Monday, 11 June 2018 14:08:21 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 6/11/2018 6:56 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Monday, 11 June 2018 12:09:31 UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote: > >> 1: You refuse to read actual literature > > > > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. > > Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything > else, after all. > > >> 2: You use various techniques to derail conversations because you cannot have it properly, including but not limited to Equivocation fallacy. > > > > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash > > Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything > else, after all. > > >> 3: Generally refuse to engage in normal conversation. You make it extremely difficult to talk with you because no matter what, you always choose the least probably intepritation and derail everything. > > > > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash > > Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything > else, after all. > > >> 4: WHen evidence is provided you ignore it completely. > > > > What evidence, poor idiot? You only imagine > > you provide it. > > Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything > else, after all. Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything else, after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 23:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pf9ia5$1r1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #414844 |
Utter Insane Idiot mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 21:40:49 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: ... >> 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. Sure, Mr Wozniak, different meangings are the same meaning because the word "prime" is the same. As with Vodka, bad vodka is same as good vodka. One of your problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b16ed2a-9a5a-4692-8e84-4e53b60030e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414850 |
On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 23:05:19 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Utter Insane Idiot mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Wednesday, 6 June 2018 21:40:49 UTC+2, Shobe, Martin wrote: > ... > >> 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. > > Sure, Mr Wozniak, different meangings are the same meaning because > the word "prime" is the same. As with Vodka, bad vodka is same as > good vodka. One of your problems. Rave, moron, and spit. You're too stupid for anything else after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe4da2a5-227c-4458-8371-be998b6cda81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414610 |
>No. You have it wrong No it is you, you cannot even grasp that in the old days of history, they operated under the assumption that euclidean geometry was the one and only geometry >Still, 1 was a prime and now it isn't. >Tomorrow it can be again. Incorrect, under the current definition "an element p is a prime if it is a non-unit and if p|ab then p|a or p|b" it will never be a prime again. >As long as Euclid ruled, the sum of angles in a triangle >was always 180. Now it is not. Nothing was changed? The sum of the angles is always 180 in euclidean geometry, just as it was back then. This has not changed. The thing that is now is that we recognise other geometries as well and have generalized definitions and theorems to accomidate them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8809ad6d-8f6d-413d-afd4-1d271ac28c3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414501 |
On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 3:36:59 AM UTC-7, 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? > 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. That's quite clear and correct, but a point to raise is for example about number theory's "integer" point at infinity. There are various considerations that it's prime, and various that it's composite. This is for "large" or "effectively infinity" systems where the largest value is effectively for example the product of all preceding, or, product of all preceding primes, or, one greater or less the product of all preceding primes, composite or prime, then there's also consideration in number theory whether there's a prime at infinity or composite, in an extension of the theory of integers. The triangle (or, tri-lateral), yes it's so that the sum of its angles is pi radians while there's the usual angle formula for regular polygons or n-gons and n-laterals for various counts of sides besides corners. This is all planar, some notion of a triangle surface that's perfectly flexible yet everywhere stiff and what happens when its corners are pulled together, has basically that for a suitably small region on a sphere, it's planar. (And for a suitably large sphere it's spherical.) I derive the area of a triangle from arguments in symmetry as about the integer lattice as build from a spiral space-filling curve as natural continuum in a geometry of points and spaces. Or, you know, half of its doubled size.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-25 23:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pgsn6m$9of$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #414499 |
On 6/2/2018 9:41 PM, 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"? > Simple riddle like thing... You go one unit to the south; one unit to the east; one unit to the north. You end up where you started... Where are you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 01:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6defe7b6-0d4c-4818-8b61-f731c60d0d76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416364 |
On Tuesday, 26 June 2018 08:41:33 UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 6/2/2018 9:41 PM, 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"? > > > > Simple riddle like thing... > > You go one unit to the south; one unit to the east; one unit to the north. > > You end up where you started... > As simple as off topic, and it's the north pole.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web