1 is not prime, though. (The common definition "only has two divisors" is unfortunately not correct, though quoted a lot. "Has exactly two divisors" is better, though the right definition is "the ring [of integers] module the number is a field" [this extends to primality over any ring, and thus is a superior definition], and "{0}" is not a field because one of the field axioms is 0<>1).
I now return you to your scheduled "OMG! FEED IS OUT!"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-26 09:02 pm (UTC)1 is not prime, though. (The common definition "only has two divisors" is unfortunately not correct, though quoted a lot. "Has exactly two divisors" is better, though the right definition is "the ring [of integers] module the number is a field" [this extends to primality over any ring, and thus is a superior definition], and "{0}" is not a field because one of the field axioms is 0<>1).
I now return you to your scheduled "OMG! FEED IS OUT!"