This problem is wrongly described. The correct problem is, "are there infinitetwin primes?", and not "are all the primes twin primes?" cause the answer to that is No. 37 is not a twin prime.
A prime number is a natural number with exactly two distinct natural number divisors. The definition in the video is not as good as under it 1 is a prime number (as is shown in the video. However 1 is NOT a prime number, hence this better given definition.
In fact it is. This subject has generated a great batle over it, but the truth is you can not descriminate the 1 out of the original definition no matter how hard you try.
As far as I have been able to determine 1 is generally considered to be neither prime nor composite, as is generally "breaks" many other definitions/theorems involving prime numbers - ie. the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. What it really boils down to though is whether or not you're considering unique or non-unique factorization.
Yes but a litle change in the unique decompostion theorem is able to include one has prime, and it doesn't conflict whit the fact that one can not be form by a multiplication of 2 other difrent factors. That is why this subject is conflictuouse, very often both classifications of 1 are not considered to be false.
Ofcourse this is all a question of semantics, the mathematical relation that they implicate doesn't depend of what you call it or not.
Oh and yes there are infinite twin primes.
MasterGhostKnight 4 years ago
This problem is wrongly described. The correct problem is, "are there infinitetwin primes?", and not "are all the primes twin primes?" cause the answer to that is No. 37 is not a twin prime.
MasterGhostKnight 4 years ago
Great!!
steven555453 4 years ago
A prime number is a natural number with exactly two distinct natural number divisors. The definition in the video is not as good as under it 1 is a prime number (as is shown in the video. However 1 is NOT a prime number, hence this better given definition.
...yeah, I was pretty bored.
UltraMathMan 5 years ago
In fact it is. This subject has generated a great batle over it, but the truth is you can not descriminate the 1 out of the original definition no matter how hard you try.
MasterGhostKnight 4 years ago
As far as I have been able to determine 1 is generally considered to be neither prime nor composite, as is generally "breaks" many other definitions/theorems involving prime numbers - ie. the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. What it really boils down to though is whether or not you're considering unique or non-unique factorization.
UltraMathMan 3 years ago
Yes but a litle change in the unique decompostion theorem is able to include one has prime, and it doesn't conflict whit the fact that one can not be form by a multiplication of 2 other difrent factors. That is why this subject is conflictuouse, very often both classifications of 1 are not considered to be false.
Ofcourse this is all a question of semantics, the mathematical relation that they implicate doesn't depend of what you call it or not.
MasterGhostKnight 3 years ago
That's pretty cool. Pity the audio is out of sync with the video.
ezk1984 5 years ago