On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:47:53AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote: > Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> writes: > > > On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 08:12:57PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote: > >> I have spent several years studying math and I say that this approach is > >> wrong > >> both in mathematical and procedural sense. It is perfectly valid to count > >> 0, > >> +1 and -1 as prime numbers and thus factor any finite ones, it just > >> involves > >> a bit more math than it is taught in school. > > > > Where? This is not about what is taught in school, but the generally > > accepted definition of "prime". > > It is generally accepted that everything happens on the will of Allah, > but we're not on theological dispute. What matters here is that you > violate established procedures on disputed issues in case where it is > more or less clear way how to resolve them. I find it bad attitude of yours > that you: > 1. "Fix" disputed issues before the dispute is resolved thus > forcing others to follow "look, it's already there" approach. > 2. "Fix" them contrary to what would be consensus. > 3. Use arguments ex cathedra to support your actions without critically > considering them. > 4. Habitualy manage things this way.
You still have done nothing to support your argument. I am still waiting to see any sort of authoritive reference why -1, 0 or 1 are primes or why this numbers have a non-empty, finite, unique set of prime factors. Ad hominem is not changing the lack of support. Joerg
