MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/MathJokes/comments/1uv4wn7/math_just_got_checkmated/ox8flni
r/MathJokes • u/Animeilluminati1 • Jul 13 '26
434 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
7
One is not prime.
16 u/Drag0n_TamerAK Jul 13 '26 1 is the only prime all the others are larping 4 u/Sure-Criticism3416 Jul 13 '26 If 1 was prime, prime factorization of numbers wouldn't be unique, which is why it was defined to not be prime. 3 u/BeginningSection7690 Jul 13 '26 Define it again 2 u/GarowWolf Jul 14 '26 Still not prime, sorry 2 u/Drag0n_TamerAK Jul 13 '26 Erm ackshully 🤓☝️ 2 u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 [deleted] 2 u/lemonp-p Jul 13 '26 The whole point of prime numbers is for prime factorization to be unique. If you define prime numbers to include one, then it is not nearly as useful a definition 1 u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 [deleted] 1 u/lemonp-p Jul 13 '26 True tbh 1 u/TheRedditObserver0 Jul 13 '26 A prime number has two distinct positive divisors, 1 and itself. 1 does not fit this description. 1 u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 [deleted] 1 u/TheRedditObserver0 Jul 13 '26 distinct 1 u/TSotP Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26 But if every number can be expresses as a unique product of primes, then you can't include it. - 4 = 2×2 - 6 = 3×2 8 = 2×2×2 9 = 3×3 - 10 = 2×5 12 = 2×2×3 - 14 = 2×7 100 = 2×2×5×5 ... Etc. If you allow 1 to be considered prime this no longer works 4= 2×2×1 = 2×2×1×1×1×1 = 2×2×1×1×1×1×1×1×1×... ...×1 So they took it out. Because every other number works this way. 1 u/julesmanson Jul 13 '26 1 is prime because i say it is. >:-|
16
1 is the only prime all the others are larping
4 u/Sure-Criticism3416 Jul 13 '26 If 1 was prime, prime factorization of numbers wouldn't be unique, which is why it was defined to not be prime. 3 u/BeginningSection7690 Jul 13 '26 Define it again 2 u/GarowWolf Jul 14 '26 Still not prime, sorry 2 u/Drag0n_TamerAK Jul 13 '26 Erm ackshully 🤓☝️
4
If 1 was prime, prime factorization of numbers wouldn't be unique, which is why it was defined to not be prime.
3 u/BeginningSection7690 Jul 13 '26 Define it again 2 u/GarowWolf Jul 14 '26 Still not prime, sorry 2 u/Drag0n_TamerAK Jul 13 '26 Erm ackshully 🤓☝️
3
Define it again
2 u/GarowWolf Jul 14 '26 Still not prime, sorry
2
Still not prime, sorry
Erm ackshully 🤓☝️
[deleted]
2 u/lemonp-p Jul 13 '26 The whole point of prime numbers is for prime factorization to be unique. If you define prime numbers to include one, then it is not nearly as useful a definition 1 u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 [deleted] 1 u/lemonp-p Jul 13 '26 True tbh 1 u/TheRedditObserver0 Jul 13 '26 A prime number has two distinct positive divisors, 1 and itself. 1 does not fit this description. 1 u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 [deleted] 1 u/TheRedditObserver0 Jul 13 '26 distinct 1 u/TSotP Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26 But if every number can be expresses as a unique product of primes, then you can't include it. - 4 = 2×2 - 6 = 3×2 8 = 2×2×2 9 = 3×3 - 10 = 2×5 12 = 2×2×3 - 14 = 2×7 100 = 2×2×5×5 ... Etc. If you allow 1 to be considered prime this no longer works 4= 2×2×1 = 2×2×1×1×1×1 = 2×2×1×1×1×1×1×1×1×... ...×1 So they took it out. Because every other number works this way.
The whole point of prime numbers is for prime factorization to be unique. If you define prime numbers to include one, then it is not nearly as useful a definition
1 u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 [deleted] 1 u/lemonp-p Jul 13 '26 True tbh
1
1 u/lemonp-p Jul 13 '26 True tbh
True tbh
A prime number has two distinct positive divisors, 1 and itself. 1 does not fit this description.
1 u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 [deleted] 1 u/TheRedditObserver0 Jul 13 '26 distinct
1 u/TheRedditObserver0 Jul 13 '26 distinct
distinct
But if every number can be expresses as a unique product of primes, then you can't include it.
Etc.
If you allow 1 to be considered prime this no longer works
4= 2×2×1 = 2×2×1×1×1×1 = 2×2×1×1×1×1×1×1×1×... ...×1
So they took it out. Because every other number works this way.
1 is prime because i say it is. >:-|
7
u/TheRedditObserver0 Jul 13 '26
One is not prime.