Live data from Hacker News

Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

mathenchant.wordpress.com

51–60 of 162 posts

Re: Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

#51
post #38
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert but: "...ignoring the trivial case of 1 being an obvious factor of every integer." I remember quite a big chunk of GEB formally defining how integers are really not trivial! The main problem seems to be is that you soon end up with circular reasoning if you are not razor sharp with your definitions. That's just in an explainer book 8) Then you have to define what factor means ...

Correct, it's impossible to specifically and formally define the natural numbers so that addition and multiplication work. Any definition of the natural numbers will also define things that look very similar to natural numbers but are not actually natural numbers.

> Correct, it's impossible to specifically and formally define the natural numbers so that addition and multiplication work. Any definition of the natural numbers will also define things that look very similar to natural numbers but are not actually natural numbers.

Are such objects not inevitably isomorphic to the natural numbers?

Can you give an example of a formal definition that leads to something that obviously isn't the same as the naturals?

Re: Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

#53
In programmer terms, imagine you had to define the product function in Python. The most natural way to write it is:

    >>> def product(ints):
    ...   result = 1
    ...   for int in ints:
    ...     result *= int
    ...   return result
In which case there is no need to make 1 a prime as you already have:

    >>> product([])
    1

Re: Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

#54
post #41

"Only divisible by itself and 1" is a darn elegant definition. 1, 2 and 3 are kind of special to me. In prime distribution studies, I discovered that they are special. It gets easier for some things if you consider primes only higher or equal to 5. Explaining distribution gets easier, some proofs become more obvious if you do that (tiny example: draw a ulam-like spiral around the numbers of an analog clock. 2 and 3 w…

The 1 exception matters as well for prime mutuality, like X and Y share no common factors other than 1 of course, sigh.

Re: Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

#55
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, it's impossible to specifically and formally define the natural numbers so that addition and multiplication work. Any definition of the natural numbers will also define things that look very similar to natural numbers but are not actually natural numbers.

What do you mean by "not actually"? Edit: do you mean literally impossible?

I mean it's logically impossible to formally and specifically define the natural numbers without introducing a logical inconsistency. The best you can do is define a set that has all the properties of natural numbers but will also define things that aren't natural numbers as well.

As an analogy you could imagine trying to define the set of all animals with a bunch of rules... "1. Animals have DNA, 2. Animals ingest organic matter. 3. Animals have a nervous system. 4. ... etc..."

And this is true of all animals, but it will also be true of things that aren't animals as well, like slime molds which are not quite animals but very similar to them.

Okay so you keep adding more rules to narrow down your definition and stamp out slime molds, but you find some other thing satisfy that definition...

Now for animals maybe you can eventually have some very complex rule set that defines animals exactly and rules out all non-animals, but the principle is that this is not possible for natural numbers.

We can have rules like "0" is a natural number. For every natural number N there is a successor to it N + 1. If N + 1 = M + 1 then N = M. There is no natural number Q such that Q + 1 = 0.

Okay this is a good starting point... but just like with animals there are numbers that satisfy all of these rules but aren't natural numbers. You can keep adding more and more rules to try to stamp these numbers out, but no matter how hard, even if you add infinitely many rules, there will always be infinitely many numbers that satisfy your rules but aren't natural numbers.

In particular what you really want to say is that a natural number is finite, but no matter how hard you try there is no formal way to actually capture the concept of what it means to be finite in general so you end up with these mutant numbers that satisfy all of your rules but have infinitely many digits, and these are called non-standard natural numbers.

The reason non-standard natural numbers are a problem is because you might have a statement like "Every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes." and this statement might be true of the actual natural numbers but there might exist some freak mutant non-standard natural number for which it's not true. Unless your rules are able to stamp out these mutant non-standard natural numbers, then it is not possible to prove this statement, the statement becomes undecidable with respect to your rules. The only statements you can prove with respect to your rules are statements that are true of the real natural numbers as well as true of all the mutant natural numbers that your rules have not been able to stamp out.

So it's in this sense that I mean that it's not possible to specifically define the natural numbers. Any definition you come up with will also apply to mutant numbers, and these mutant numbers can get in the way of you proving things that are in principle true about the actual natural numbers.

Re: Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

#56
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach That's the GEB I mentioned above.

I know this is a great book, it’s been on my to-read list for about 5 years. But I never get to it. Is there not another (shorter) discussion I could read on this? Even an academic paper would be acceptable.

As I said above, I'm not an expert. However, I read GEB on a whim when bored at school and I think it still informs my thinking 35 years later.

Move GEB up the reading list right now! The edition I initially read was hard bound and was quite worn. I bought and read it again about 20 years ago and found more treasures.

It is a proper nerd grade treatise for non experts who are interested in maths, music and art. Really: maths, music and art from a mostly mathematical perspective. Hofstadter's writing style is very easy going and he is a master of clarity without complexity.

I don't think you need any more Maths than you would get up to age 18 or so at school to understand the entire book and probably less. Even if you gloss the formal Maths the book still works.

Re: Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

#57
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach That's the GEB I mentioned above.

I know this is a great book, it’s been on my to-read list for about 5 years. But I never get to it. Is there not another (shorter) discussion I could read on this? Even an academic paper would be acceptable.

There's no shortage of blog posts on the topic, but here is one that is fairly rigorous but doesn't assume too much background knowledge:

https://risingentropy.com/a-result-on-the-incompleteness-of-...

Re: Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

#58

Other good nerd-sniping math questions: 0^0 = 1? Yes, it’s simpler that way. 0! = 1? Yes, it’s simpler that way. 0/0 = ∞? No, it’s undefined. 0.9999… = 1? Yes, it’s just two ways of expressing the same number. 1+2+3+… = -1/12? No, but if it did have a finite value, that’s what it would be.

If we try to define division by zero, shouldnt 0/0 be 1?

Or even more abstract "every element on y". Which I think could sort of work

Re: Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

#59
post #51
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, it's impossible to specifically and formally define the natural numbers so that addition and multiplication work. Any definition of the natural numbers will also define things that look very similar to natural numbers but are not actually natural numbers.

> Correct, it's impossible to specifically and formally define the natural numbers so that addition and multiplication work. Any definition of the natural numbers will also define things that look very similar to natural numbers but are not actually natural numbers. Are such objects not inevitably isomorphic to the natural numbers? Can you give an example of a formal definition that leads to something that obviously…

The Peano Axioms lead to both the standard model of arithmetic (the integers that we want), and nonstandard models. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_arithmet....

In that article you'll see references to "first order logic" and "second order logic". First order logic captures any possible finite chain of reasoning. Second order logic allows us to take logical steps that would require a potentially infinite amount of reasoning to do. Gödel's famous theorems were about the limitations of first order logic. While second order logic has no such limitations, it is also not something that humans can actually do. (We can reason about second order logic though.)

Anyways a nonstandard model of arithmetic can have all sorts of bizarre things. Such as a proof that Peano Axioms lead to a contradiction. While it might seem that this leads to a contradiction in the Peano Axioms, it doesn't because the "proof" is (from our point of view) infinitely long, and so not really a proof at all! (This is also why logicians have to draw a very careful distinction between "these axioms prove" and "these axioms prove that they prove"...)

Re: Is 1 Prime, and Does It Matter?

#60
post #50
post #3

One reason that 1 is often excluded from the prime numbers is that if it was included, it would complicate the theorems, proofs, and exposition by the endless repetition of "not equal to 1".

To be fair, 2 is also a very odd prime because it's even. So many theorems have to say, "for every odd prime..." https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1177104/what-is-an-...

The concept of “one” holds a dual role. It represents a countable unit: something you can put in a bowl and also stands for indivisibility itself. When you divide any quantity by an indivisible unit, you’re simply counting how many of those indivisibles fit within it. Then comes 2: the first number that is divisible, but only by itself and the indivisible one. That’s what makes it prime. A prime is a number divisible only by itself and by 1, the indivisible origin of all counting.
Post reply on HN