I hereby declare this to be...
Zixia
International "Treat a Kibologist like a Bitch" month.
This morning, I found out that I have all the drawbacks of spending
large (okay, moderate) sums of money on useless items--to whit, having
them appear on my credit card statement, with the understanding that I
will pay for said items--but without any of the benefits that buying
such items brings. Such benefits would be, for example, actually
buying and having whatever it is that was paid for with my credit card.
Maybe I should have made my PIN harder to guess? It's 1077--the price
of a cheese pizza and large soda at Panucci's Pizza in 1999.
--
@+------------+@
_o)| I am |(o_
/\\| Stealthy |//\
_\_V|____________|V_/_ http://www.clu.org.uk/
Kim Wright
"Zixia" <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns91EE9E0...@130.133.1.4...
Same thing happened to me last month. I got to spend substantial sums on
money in Venezuela. I'm sure it was beautiful, I wish I could have been
there. I hope the sushi was delicious. Oops, I mean cursed.
Kim "I shivered in Pa and had no cursed sushi" Wright
Kevin S. Wilson
>
>International "Treat a Kibologist like a Bitch" month.
>
>This morning, I found out that I have all the drawbacks of spending
>large (okay, moderate) sums of money on useless items--to whit, having
>them appear on my credit card statement, with the understanding that I
>will pay for said items--but without any of the benefits that buying
>such items brings. Such benefits would be, for example, actually
>buying and having whatever it is that was paid for with my credit card.
Document--in writing--every bit of communication with the retailers
and your credit card company. If it ain't in writing, it donut exist.
Somewhere around here I have the only useful e-mail forward I've ever
received, containing Good Advice about what to do if you lose your
wallet. If I find it, I'll pass it along, for it contains some Good
Advice you might beable to use.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
David DeLaney
>
>This morning, I found out that I have all the drawbacks of spending
>large (okay, moderate) sums of money on useless items--to whit, having
>them appear on my credit card statement, with the understanding that I
>will pay for said items--but without any of the benefits that buying
>such items brings. Such benefits would be, for example, actually
>buying and having whatever it is that was paid for with my credit card.
>
>Maybe I should have made my PIN harder to guess? It's 1077--the price
>of a cheese pizza and large soda at Panucci's Pizza in 1999.
This would be time to a) inform your credit card company in no uncertain terms
that you are not paying for that muffler, backing this up with the same
statement in writing, and b) informing your credit card company that you need
to change your credit card's credit card number.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Zixia
[Wanton spending on my credit card by parties unknown]
> This would be time to a) inform your credit card company in no
> uncertain terms that you are not paying for that muffler, backing
> this up with the same statement in writing, and b) informing your
> credit card company that you need to change your credit card's
> credit card number.
Yeah, I informed the credit card company almost as soon as I opened my
statement. The company cancelled my card there and then (which is a
bit inconvenient, but better safe than sorry, &c) and will issue me a
new one within a week. In the meantime, there will be an
investigation.
I believe consumers have quite a few rights in this sort of thing, so
I'm not really worried. Besides, the fraud seems to be professional,
as the card was used three days in a row, in different geographical
locations, and then 'discarded'.
It's just a little irritating.
robert lindsay
Zixia <zi...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>
>International "Treat a Kibologist like a Bitch" month.
>
>This morning, I found out that I have all the drawbacks of spending
>large (okay, moderate) sums of money on useless items--to whit, having
>them appear on my credit card statement, with the understanding that I
>will pay for said items--but without any of the benefits that buying
>such items brings. Such benefits would be, for example, actually
>buying and having whatever it is that was paid for with my credit card.
SO how did they boost your CC#?
>Maybe I should have made my PIN harder to guess? It's 1077--the price
>of a cheese pizza and large soda at Panucci's Pizza in 1999.
Is that in english money? $16 bux for a Pizza and a Large Coke?
Man, we'd be rioting in the streets here in the U!S!A! over that.
--
Robert Lindsay, NASA - Goddard, Greenbelt MD rlin...@seadas.gsfc.nasa.gov
#include <standard_disclaimer.h> 301-286-9958 ISTJ NON SVM ACERBVS
Damn, I knew I should have paid the extra $800 to get the better model
of computer. This one doesn't have ANY anti-rodent buttons. -Kibo
Zixia
> In article <Xns91EE9E0...@130.133.1.4>,
> Zixia <zi...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>This morning, I found out that I have all the drawbacks of
>>spending large (okay, moderate) sums of money on useless items--to
>>whit, having them appear on my credit card statement, with the
>>understanding that I will pay for said items--but without any of
>>the benefits that buying such items brings. Such benefits would
>>be, for example, actually buying and having whatever it is that
>>was paid for with my credit card.
>
> SO how did they boost your CC#?
Probably some 1337 ha><uors got it from a webs page somewhere. I won't
make the mistake of ordering things on-line again.
The good news is that I got my new credit card today--hurrah! I'm
going to celebrate by going on an Internet spending spree!
>>Maybe I should have made my PIN harder to guess? It's 1077--the
>>price of a cheese pizza and large soda at Panucci's Pizza in 1999.
>
> Is that in english money? $16 bux for a Pizza and a Large Coke?
> Man, we'd be rioting in the streets here in the U!S!A! over that.
Perhaps, but those were 1999 prices, when everyone thought the world
was going to end, which led to the internation pizza crisis, pushing up
prices of pizzas in 18 different nations. Those were tough times.
Dangermouse
> The good news is that I got my new credit card today--hurrah! I'm
> going to celebrate by going on an Internet spending spree!
Qool! What number did they give you? I got 9122 1590 0800 8101. For some
reason it expires on 09/03 although I'm not sure which year that would be.
Do you know any good websites to buy stuff? I've been to Amazone.co, thats
pretty neat.
--
Benny F. Masterman
Zixia
> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> The good news is that I got my new credit card--hurrah!
>> I'm going to celebrate by going on an Internet spending spree!
>
> Qool! What number did they give you? I got 9122 1590 0800 8101.
> For some reason it expires on 09/03 although I'm not sure which
> year that would be. Do you know any good websites to buy stuff?
> I've been to Amazone.co, thats pretty neat.
I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's a
prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check that for sure,
do they? And you can't trick me into giving out my expiry date again,
like you did last time. I'll just say that I got it last month and it
is valid for two years.
I usually buy my stuff on-line from htpp:megashops.co as it has
EVERYTHING! Except that CD I wanted the other day, but I just got that
down the road. It was cheaper in my local shop as well, but it doesn't
beat buying stuff off the intereweb.
Tim Bruening
Zixia wrote:
> Dangermouse devised a cunning plan:
>
> > Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> The good news is that I got my new credit card--hurrah!
> >> I'm going to celebrate by going on an Internet spending spree!
> >
> > Qool! What number did they give you? I got 9122 1590 0800 8101.
> > For some reason it expires on 09/03 although I'm not sure which
> > year that would be. Do you know any good websites to buy stuff?
> > I've been to Amazone.co, thats pretty neat.
>
> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's a
> prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check that for sure,
> do they? And you can't trick me into giving out my expiry date again,
> like you did last time. I'll just say that I got it last month and it
> is valid for two years.
It can't be a prime number, since its an even number other than two! Also,
is it really a good idea to post your credit card numbers on the Internet?
Tim Bruening
Zixia wrote:
> Dangermouse devised a cunning plan:
>
> > Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> The good news is that I got my new credit card--hurrah!
> >> I'm going to celebrate by going on an Internet spending spree!
> >
> > Qool! What number did they give you? I got 9122 1590 0800 8101.
> > For some reason it expires on 09/03 although I'm not sure which
> > year that would be. Do you know any good websites to buy stuff?
> > I've been to Amazone.co, thats pretty neat.
>
> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's a
> prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check that for sure,
> do they? And you can't trick me into giving out my expiry date again,
> like you did last time. I'll just say that I got it last month and it
> is valid for two years.
I hereby deduce an expiration date of 03/04.:)
Dangermouse
> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's a
> prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check that for sure,
> do they?
That's not a prime number as the square root is not a whole number. One
wonders if you even know what a prime number is.
--
dangermouse
Chris Franks
"Dangermouse" <pos...@baker.street> wrote
Hey! Where did you get my Master Card account number?
Zixia
So just because it's an even number it can't be a prime number? Look
at all the odd numbers in it! I don't know what sort of crazy maths
you've been taught, but in my classes we had to provide better proofs
than that. You didn't even show any working!
> Also, is it really a good idea to post your credit card numbers on
> the Internet?
But this is the Usernet, not the Internet, and as there aren't any
shops on the Usernet no-one can misuse my new Mastercard number.
Zixia
Nice try, but you're assuming that it's currently April, and we all
know what happens when you assume something!
Zixia
> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
Maybe if you learnt some matrex multiplication you would be able to
work out your square roots better. I still think that it has a good
chance of being prime, what with all the odd numbers in it. I'm just a
bit busy right now to do all the tedious calculations.
Kevin S. Wilson
>Tim Bruening devised a cunning plan:
>
>> Zixia wrote:
>>
>>> Dangermouse devised a cunning plan:
>
>> Also, is it really a good idea to post your credit card numbers on
>> the Internet?
>
>But this is the Usernet, not the Internet, and as there aren't any
>shops on the Usernet no-one can misuse my new Mastercard number.
>
Get your facts straight, newbie. Though there might've once been a
trivial distinction between the USENET and the INTERNET, that
distinction faded once AOL (America On Line) entered the picture.
Virgil
Dangermouse <pos...@baker.street> wrote:
> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's a
> > prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check that for sure,
> > do they?
The last digit in the number is even, so, assuming decimal notation,
the number itself is even.
Since even numbers other than 2 are not prime, your number is not
prime.
Dave Neary
>> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's a
>> > prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check that for sure,
>> > do they?
>
> prime.
How can you say that? All even numbers are prime, by definition.
Dave.
--
David Neary,
E-Mail: bolsh at gimp dot org
Flying Noodle
-Noodle
"Zixia" <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns91F9D87...@130.133.1.4...
Randy Hudson
Chris Franks <chris_...@agilent.com> wrote:
>
>> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's a
>
That's a VISA number, not MC, with a leading digit of 4. MC starts with 5,
Discover starts with 6.
--
Randy Hudson <i...@panix.com>
Christmas Ape
Ctrl C, opened Word 98, Ctrl V, Ctrl P, opened internet, looked at the
paper, used your info.
I now have a 19" TV, color.
"Kevin S. Wilson" <res...@spro.net> wrote in message
news:3cc5c140...@news.micron.net...
Dann Corbit
news:slrnacbim6.dhm.re...@bolsh.wanadoo.fr...
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:22:06 GMT, Virgil said:
> >> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's a
> >> > prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check that for
sure,
> >> > do they?
> >
> > Since even numbers other than 2 are not prime, your number is not
> > prime.
>
> How can you say that? All even numbers are prime, by definition.
It is clear (considering the headers) that the question is not whether the
number is mathematically prime, but [rather] kibologically prime. Now, when
we examine this number:
C:\Program Files\Winboard>factor 4842055718735472
first trying brute force division by small primes
PRIME FACTOR 2
PRIME FACTOR 2
PRIME FACTOR 2
PRIME FACTOR 2
PRIME FACTOR 3
PRIME FACTOR 3
PRIME FACTOR 33625386935663
We can see that it is *chock full O' primes*. It even has 33625386935663 as
a factor, which ASTONISHINGLY starts off with 336 and ends with 663, which
is almost tangentially palindromic (if you use your imagination).
Therefore, while not [strictly speaking] a prime in the _mathematical_
sense, it surely is prime from the standpoint of a kibological definition.
A reading of a few posts in news:alt.religion.kibology will quickly convince
you of the highly kibological nature of this number. Better yet, if we use
33625386935663 as a repunit that repeats infinitely, then we have a _P-ADIC_
number, which would make a perverse connection to the 'one atom universe'
and [through the process of nuclear fusion] would absorb a tremendous amount
of energy. That energy has got to go somewhere [laws of conservation and
all that] and so we might expect Kibo's dog Spot to become so energized that
he would finally make it into Mensa.
--
C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
"The C-FAQ Book" ISBN 0-201-84519-9
C.A.P. FAQ: ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/Chess%20Analysis%20Project%20FAQ.htm
Chris Franks
"Dann Corbit" <dco...@connx.com> wrote
>
> C:\Program Files\Winboard>factor 4842055718735472
> first trying brute force division by small primes
> PRIME FACTOR 2
> PRIME FACTOR 2
> PRIME FACTOR 2
> PRIME FACTOR 2
> PRIME FACTOR 3
> PRIME FACTOR 3
> PRIME FACTOR 33625386935663
>
> We can see that it is *chock full O' primes*. It even has 33625386935663
as
> a factor, which ASTONISHINGLY starts off with 336 and ends with 663, which
> is almost tangentially palindromic (if you use your imagination).
Be careful Angel Garcia can use your data to prove that this number
was invented by Martians in Cydonia.
ranch...@nospam.mindspring.com
Not likely that it is prime. A prime number is one that is NOT
divisible by any number other than ONE or itself. Seems it is divisible
by at least the number TWO. I didn't try any others.
Dann Corbit
news:3CC5EF18...@mindspring.com...
I tried -1 and the modulus was zero for _every_ number. So I guess Zixia
must have been right (at least according to your definition of primeness).
All of them[1] are. When you get right down to it, this is sort of the
"prime beef" sort of definition, I suppose. 'Highly excellent' might be
considered a synonym.
[1] Those 'integer' thingies.
P.S.
Both your ONE and your TWO are screaming.
P.P.S.
Paintball and movies trimmed. Bad combination -- for obvious reasons.
P.P.P.S.
Did you know that 'gullible' isn't even a real dictionary word?
Mark Allread
> Did you know that 'gullible' isn't even a real dictionary word?
Of course, but it IS in my fake dictionary.
GPumpkin
> Tim Bruening devised a cunning plan:
>
> > Zixia wrote:
> >
> >> Dangermouse devised a cunning plan:
> >>
> >> > Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The good news is that I got my new credit card--hurrah!
> >> >> I'm going to celebrate by going on an Internet spending spree!
> >> >
> >> > Qool! What number did they give you? I got 9122 1590 0800 8101.
> >> > For some reason it expires on 09/03 although I'm not sure which
> >> > year that would be. Do you know any good websites to buy stuff?
> >> > I've been to Amazone.co, thats pretty neat.
> >>
> >> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's
> >> a prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check that
> >> for sure, do they? And you can't trick me into giving out my
> >> expiry date again, like you did last time. I'll just say that I
> >> got it last month and it is valid for two years.
> >
> > It can't be a prime number, since its an even number other than
> > two!
>
> So just because it's an even number it can't be a prime number? Look
> at all the odd numbers in it! I don't know what sort of crazy maths
> you've been taught, but in my classes we had to provide better proofs
> than that. You didn't even show any working!
>
proof...
2421027859367736 x 2 = 4842055718735472
4842055718735472 x 3 = 4842055718735472
1210513929683868 x 4 = 4842055718735472
807009286455912 x 6 = 4842055718735472
605256964841934 x 8 = 4842055718735472
538006190970608 x 9 = 4842055718735472
and being evenly divisible by a whole number greater than 1 is the
definition of 'not prime'.
So this number is rather ambitiously not prime.
GPump
mtr
news:<Xns91EE9E0...@130.133.1.4>...
> Maybe I should have made my PIN harder to guess? It's 1077--the price
> of a cheese pizza and large soda at Panucci's Pizza in 1999.
I like mine with sardines.
Kevin S. Wilson
<mbkn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Its not a prime number if it ends in an even number. Sorry.
>
Please don't top post. Top posting crashes most modern news readers
and it makes searching on goggle.com more difficult than it needs to
be.
Xcott Craver
>
>
>and being evenly divisible by a whole number greater than 1 is the
He also forgot to mention that 4842055718735472 is
evenly divisible by 4842055718735472.
Say, wait a minute, 3 is evenly divisible by 3.
>GPump
-X
Xcott Craver
>"Dann Corbit" <dco...@connx.com> wrote
>>
>> We can see that it is *chock full O' primes*. It even has 33625386935663
>> as a factor, which ASTONISHINGLY starts off with 336 and ends with 663,
>> which is almost tangentially palindromic (if you use your imagination).
>
> Be careful Angel Garcia can use your data to prove that this number
> was invented by Martians in Cydonia.
By BEES!!!!
BEES BEES BEES BEES!!!!!!! La la la la, bees!
-X
[ YOUR CREDIT CARD HAS BEE [OK] ]
Phil Carmody
Funny you should say that, as when I see the number 33625386935663 I see an almost human face.
You see the 3s at the ends, they're the ears. You can tell it's the face of a boxer...
Anyway, all this proves is that 4842055718735472 isn't irreducible, but doesn't prove that it's not prime, as you've made the fatal Harrisian mistake of not naming your ring.
(1 euro to the International Red Cross, but it was worth it ;-P )
Phil
Kevin S. Wilson
And yet . . .
>but here's your
>proof...
>
>2421027859367736 x 2 = 4842055718735472
>4842055718735472 x 3 = 4842055718735472
>1210513929683868 x 4 = 4842055718735472
>807009286455912 x 6 = 4842055718735472
>605256964841934 x 8 = 4842055718735472
>538006190970608 x 9 = 4842055718735472
>
>and being evenly divisible by a whole number greater than 1 is the
>definition of 'not prime'.
I think you mean "unprime." As is the case with most academic
disciplines, mathematics has its own nomenclature, and its precise use
is often the difference between communication and confusion.
>So this number is rather ambitiously not prime.
Numbers got ambitions?
Paul Richardson
<snip loads of crap that's included later in the posting>
<quote>
So just because it's an even number it can't be a prime number?
</quote>
</snip blah blah>
Ermm according to any maths that is correctly taught on the face of this
planet yep. Unless the number is 2 of course!! (It isn't if you want to
read on further!)
A technical definition of a prime number is:
Technical comment on the definition: In the integers we can easily prove
the following
A positive integer p, not one, is prime if whenever it divides the product
of integers ab, then it divides a or b (perhaps both).
A positive integer p, not one, is prime if it can not be decomposed into
factors p=ab, neither of which is 1 or -1.
(from http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php/Prime.html)
hence taking either definition any number that ends in 2 is not prime as
it can be devided by 2 leaving another integer
i.e. n = 2b
where n ends in 2 and b is an integer.
So there ;-P~
Paul
Zixia
> Zixia wrote:
>>
>> Dangermouse devised a cunning plan:
>>
>> > Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think
>> >> it's a prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to
>> >> check that for sure, do they?
>> >
>> > That's not a prime number as the square root is not a whole
>> > number. One wonders if you even know what a prime number is.
>>
>> Maybe if you learnt some matrex multiplication you would be able
>> to work out your square roots better. I still think that it has
>> a good chance of being prime, what with all the odd numbers in
>> it. I'm just a bit busy right now to do all the tedious
>> calculations.
>>
> Not likely that it is prime. A prime number is one that is NOT
> divisible by any number other than ONE or itself. Seems it is
> divisible by at least the number TWO. I didn't try any others.
Well, okay, so my number is divisible by two, but what about all the
other numbers? I still think there is a good chance of it being prime.
Zixia
Crap. It would have been so much cooler if it had been a prime number.
But, as it is divisible by primes, I've heard that it makes it
computationally difficult to get back to the original number
(4842055718735472), right? That's good, as it should make it much more
difficult for computer intrenet boffins to hack my credit card account.
Zixia
> Its not a prime number if it ends in an even number. Sorry.
Then how come 84,609,914,331,752 is prime? That ruins your theory,
doesn't it.
Randy Poe
No, there is actually a very low probability of your
number being prime. You will have to repeat the
prime test hundreds of times to get a few successes.
- Randy
Bob
Zixia wrote:
If a number is divisible by any number other than itself or 1, it is by
definition, not, repeat, NOT, a prime number.
Bob
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>If a number is divisible by any number other than itself or 1, it is by
>definition, not, repeat, NOT, a prime number.
You are correct, of course. And the technical term for such numbers,
it's worth noting, is "unprime numbers."
Dangermouse
> Ermm according to any maths that is correctly taught on the face of
> this planet yep.
But surely you're not suggesting that all the answers to mathematics can
be found on this planet. With all due respect, that's crazy talk.
> A positive integer p, not one, is prime if whenever it divides the
> product of integers ab, then it divides a or b (perhaps both).
>
> A positive integer p, not one, is prime if it can not be decomposed
> into factors p=ab, neither of which is 1 or -1.
>
> hence taking either definition any number that ends in 2 is not prime
> as it can be devided by 2 leaving another integer
>
> i.e. n = 2b
> where n ends in 2 and b is an integer.
What the heck is n? A number? A prime number? A recipe for chilli? You
can't just bandy around undefined variables and expect non-experts to be
able to follow this kind of complex mathematical "proof".
> ;-P~
So p can be negative now? You could at least keep a bit of consistency.
--
dangermouse
Dangermouse
> Flying Noodle devised a cunning plan:
>
>> Its not a prime number if it ends in an even number. Sorry.
>
> Then how come 84,609,914,331,752 is prime? That ruins your theory,
> doesn't it.
"Error. That is not a valid credit card number. Please contact the
issuer." Can I have a new number, please? Preferably with more digits and
less prime.
--
dangermouse
Jeff Goslin
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:46:14 -0700, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If a number is divisible by any number other than itself or 1, it is by
> >definition, not, repeat, NOT, a prime number.
>
> You are correct, of course. And the technical term for such numbers,
> it's worth noting, is "unprime numbers."
Actually, it depends on your perspective. Some of those such numbers, when
applying for mortgages, are actually referred to by lenders as "subprime",
and as such, don't get the best rates. That's why you see all those even
numbers living in such squalid housing arrangements. I think they call them
duplexes...
--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD
Not buying the Angel: -$1300
Bag of paint and some 12 grams: $5
Bunkering an electro-punk with my PGP: Priceless
Don't forget your VISA card, punk.
http://68.43.168.45/paintball/collection1.html
Zixia
> On 23 Apr 2002 20:19:57 GMT, Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Dangermouse devised a cunning plan:
>>
>>> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think
>>>> it's a prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check
>>>> that for sure, do they?
>>>
>>> That's not a prime number as the square root is not a whole
>>> number. One wonders if you even know what a prime number is.
>>
>>Maybe if you learnt some matrex multiplication you would be able
>>to work out your square roots better. I still think that it has a
>>good chance of being prime, what with all the odd numbers in it.
>>I'm just a bit busy right now to do all the tedious calculations.
>
> Well, ummm...you could have started by noting that it's an even
> number, so it's not prime.
Oh, I didn't realise it was an even number. Maybe it's only half-
prime, or whatever the term is? I think you need to divide it by pi
(22/3) to work that out, but I'm not sure how to do the maths. That
would still be pretty neat if it was half-prime.
Dann Corbit
> wrote:
>
> >If a number is divisible by any number other than itself or 1, it is by
> >definition, not, repeat, NOT, a prime number.
>
> You are correct, of course. And the technical term for such numbers,
> it's worth noting, is "unprime numbers."
Also known as "USDA Grade B" numbers, you will find them served in the
low-quality, back-alley sort of math shops that aren't willing to spend the
money on prime quality. Tough, gamy, and strong-tasting, a real connoisseur
will recognize them for what they are immediately. Sometimes, these 'less
than prime' numbers can still be pretty good. Carmichael numbers (for
instance) are almost prime, except to the discriminating palette, and even
highly composite numbers can be relatively prime with your favorite, spicy
factor set.
It is disturbing (however) to pay top dollar for what you think are prime
numbers, only to find that you have been duped. Some rank amateurs have
even been tricked by 91 and utter neophytes by 42. But at least you'll have
the answer to everything, in the latter case. [O-HHGTTG-R]
Dave Paisley
Dangermouse wrote:
>
> Paul Richardson <pg...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ermm according to any maths that is correctly taught on the face of
> > this planet yep.
So math is plural now? ;-)
> But surely you're not suggesting that all the answers to mathematics can
> be found on this planet. With all due respect, that's crazy talk.
>
> > A positive integer p, not one, is prime if whenever it divides the
> > product of integers ab, then it divides a or b (perhaps both).
> >
> > A positive integer p, not one, is prime if it can not be decomposed
> > into factors p=ab, neither of which is 1 or -1.
> >
> > hence taking either definition any number that ends in 2 is not prime
> > as it can be devided by 2 leaving another integer
> >
> > i.e. n = 2b
> > where n ends in 2 and b is an integer.
>
> What the heck is n? A number? A prime number? A recipe for chilli? You
> can't just bandy around undefined variables and expect non-experts to be
> able to follow this kind of complex mathematical "proof".
So what you're asking is, "n, is it 2b or not 2b?" Is that the question?
> > ;-P~
>
> So p can be negative now?
No, I think it's drool. of course, drool is negative in its own way.
dave
terrell gibbs
<ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
In article <Xns91FAE8F...@130.133.1.4>, Zixia
<ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
> Oh, I didn't realise it was an even number. Maybe it's only half-
> prime, or whatever the term is? I think you need to divide it by pi
> (22/3) to work that out, but I'm not sure how to do the maths. That
> would still be pretty neat if it was half-prime.
If the last digit of a number is even, the number is even. And if the
sum of the digits of a number is evenly dividable by 3, then 3 is a
factor.
Dividing an integer by pi will yield a non-integer. 22/7 is only an
approximation for pi.
I don't know what this business is about the square root of a prime
being a whole number--it's the other way around; the square root of a
prime can *not* be a whole number.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think it's a
> prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to check that for
My most frequently used card has the product of two large primes. If I
told you *how* large, Andy Z would probably be making purchases on it by
the time you finished reading this.
ŹR
jimmy
starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number. Next
it's divisable by 3 also. Not to mention 4, 6, and 9. Are you trying to
get a number that is divisble by the most numbers? A prim number is
divisble by only the number 1 and the number itself. Look at the number 3,
what are the only whole numbers that 3 is divisble by? That's right 1 and
3, therefore it is prime. Look at 101, that is divisble by only 101 and 1.
You want to know what that means....it means that it is prime. Now, a
number, like yours, or 10. Is divisble by 1, 2, 5, and 10. That is more
than just 1 and itself, therefore it is composite. Just like your number.
Now, there is no such thing as a more prime number or a less prime number
based soley on the fact of how many things it is divisble by. Now, once it
is divisble by a number other than itself and one, there is NO chance of it
being prime. Now, for your idiotic entertainment, try to find the 25 number
between 0 and 101 inclusive, that are prime.
Brian Osserman
I hope to God everyone posting in this thread (Terrell and Ralph
excepted) is only joking. Let's review: a number is prime if and only if
it has no (positive integer) divisors other than itself and 1. An even
number other than 2 is never prime, since 2 divides it. Terrell gave a way
of checking if a number is divisible by 3 (note that one can repeat this to
make it very fast: add up the digits, then add them up again, then add them
up again, etc, until you get a number that is obviously divisible by 3 or
not). But, you cannot check if a large number is prime anywhere near that
naively. The only naive way of checking (and this might be where the rather
odd square root statement came from) would be to make sure that no prime
number less than (or equal to) the square root of the your number divides it
evenly. However, this takes a rather long time for large number. There are
faster ways of doing it, but they get very sophisticated very quickly.
Unfortunately, I don't know of any provably fast way of proving a number is
prime that uses elementary methods. It is very non-trivial mathematics. And
with the exception of the final digit, the number of even or odd digits
shouldn't say anything about the chances of it being prime, I don't think
(not that I can actually come up with a proof of that at the moment, but it
feels like it should be somehow related to Dirichlet's theorem on primes in
arithmetic progressions).
Brian
Jacob W. Haller
> You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is, for
> starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number.
Nobody's saying it's not divisable by 2. The question is, is it
_evenly_ divisible by 2? Clearly, if it isn't, the question of its
primeness is left open.
The other thing is that you say that you claim that the number
4,842,055,718,735,472 is divisible by two, but you give no proof of the
fact. How can you be so sure? The number is pretty big.
At minimum, I'd think you'd have to provide the other factor (which
multiplied by 2 gives the original number) so we can start to verify
your claim. (Of course, given the size of the numbers involved, it
might take a while.)
Thanks,
jwgh
--
"If you have two animal crackers, one good and one bad, and you eat one
and a striped zebra with streaks all over him eats the other, how many
animal crackers will you have if someone offers you five six seven and
you say No no no and you say Nay nay nay and you say Nix nix nix?"
- Carl Sandburg, "Arithmetic"
Jeff Goslin
news:1fb688x.ogh5fh1b0nw2pN%sp...@jwgh.org...
> Nobody's saying it's not divisable by 2. The question is, is it
> _evenly_ divisible by 2? Clearly, if it isn't, the question of its
> primeness is left open.
Clearly, your statement is correct. Only if the number is evenly divisible
by 2 is the question of it's primeness laid permanently to rest. Perhaps it
should be said, that is the first test to see if a number is prime. I felt
that little "addition" was necessary given the absolute stupidity shown in
this thread.
> The other thing is that you say that you claim that the number
> 4,842,055,718,735,472 is divisible by two, but you give no proof of the
> fact. How can you be so sure? The number is pretty big.
Well. When I get out my handy dandy snifty calculator(it's a big one, the
one with lots of buttons on it, so it can handle those big numbers).
2421027859367736
That's your big ass number divided by 2. Strangely enough, it is divided
evenly by 2. Oddly enough, any number ending with an even number (that is
to say, an even number in the rightmost space when written from left to
right) is evenly divisible by two.
> At minimum, I'd think you'd have to provide the other factor (which
> multiplied by 2 gives the original number) so we can start to verify
> your claim. (Of course, given the size of the numbers involved, it
> might take a while.)
Since that number is, at the very least, an even number higher than 2, it
cannot be a prime number.
And I'd like to thank the bridge underworkers for yanking me ever so
delicately by the short and curlys into the depths of this thread...
Steve Leibel
sp...@jwgh.org (Jacob W. Haller) wrote:
> jimmy <insertad...@wherever.com> wrote:
>
> > You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is, for
> > starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number.
>
> Nobody's saying it's not divisable by 2. The question is, is it
> _evenly_ divisible by 2? Clearly, if it isn't, the question of its
> primeness is left open.
>
Look, this is obviously someone's idea of a troll, why is everyone
getting upset?
Virgil
sp...@jwgh.org (Jacob W. Haller) wrote:
> > You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is, for
> > starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number.
>
> Nobody's saying it's not divisable by 2. The question is, is it
> _evenly_ divisible by 2? Clearly, if it isn't, the question of its
> primeness is left open.
>
> The other thing is that you say that you claim that the number
> 4,842,055,718,735,472 is divisible by two, but you give no proof of the
> fact. How can you be so sure? The number is pretty big.
>
> At minimum, I'd think you'd have to provide the other factor (which
> multiplied by 2 gives the original number) so we can start to verify
> your claim. (Of course, given the size of the numbers involved, it
> might take a while.)
4,842,055,718,735,472 = 10*x + 2 for some integer x whose value is
of no importance to the analysis.
10 is evenly divisible by 2, so 10*x is also.
2 is evenly divisible by 2.
Thus 10*x+2 is evenly divisible by 2.
Whatever steps are not given in excruciating detail in my analysis
can be easily supplied by anyone not as totally innumerate as you
are presenting yourself to be.
Dik T. Winter
> 10 is evenly divisible by 2, so 10*x is also.
Eh, no, 10 is oddly divisible by 2.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Black-Omega
when you divide it buy 2 you get 5 a whole number.
Anyway moot point we already know that it's not a prime number someone used
a calculator and divided it by two getting a whole number as a result.
"Dik T. Winter" <Dik.W...@cwi.nl> wrote in message
news:Gv4B7...@cwi.nl...
ATA
> jimmy <insertad...@wherever.com> wrote:
>
> > You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is, for
> > starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number.
>
> Nobody's saying it's not divisable by 2. The question is, is it
> _evenly_ divisible by 2? Clearly, if it isn't, the question of its
> primeness is left open.
>
> The other thing is that you say that you claim that the number
> 4,842,055,718,735,472 is divisible by two, but you give no proof of the
> fact. How can you be so sure? The number is pretty big.
>
> At minimum, I'd think you'd have to provide the other factor (which
> multiplied by 2 gives the original number) so we can start to verify
> your claim. (Of course, given the size of the numbers involved, it
> might take a while.)
>
> Thanks,
> jwgh
Obviously, you are severely retarded, any number that ends with an
even digit is divisible by two. If you REALLY want a proof of that,
ok, i'll give you one. Lets make the number a little smaller, and dont
worry, it still will work with your big number and you'll see why.
Lets take the number abcd (not multiply, but they are digits), if we
split it up into 1's, 10's 100's etc. we get a get d + 10c + 100b +
1000a. Now, we KNOW and even YOU should know that 10, 100, and 1000,
(and any other pultiple of 10) is divisible by 2, so we can take out
the last 3 terms, and we are left with d. now d is a number between 0
and 9, and only the EVEN posibilities of d are divisible by 2, THAT is
why any number that ends with an even digit is divisible by 2, and
therefor NOT prime.
LCT Paintball
did you think that just because they are talking about math they couldn't be
a troll? You gotta get out more! : )
"Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zhNx8.189523$K5.15...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Matthew Hyde
You weren't sure you could do the maths, and yet you posted that you
thought you had found a prime number. Nevermind that number theory
research is a huge subject, just tell us, what algorithm did you use to
get that many digits, and could you not check the list of known primes,
which goes beyond that number you found? And you didn't find it,
either--it's always been there.
Matt Hyde
Math Sciences, MTU
Houghton, MI
Eddie '/Hi There!'/ Lowther
> Ok the guy could have phrased that better 10 is equally divisable by two ie
> when you divide it buy 2 you get 5 a whole number.
>
> Anyway moot point we already know that it's not a prime number someone used
> a calculator and divided it by two getting a whole number as a result.
>
...
You know, I think you are all verging into ALGEBRA when
you use them 'X' things,...would ya'll quit WAVING HANDS
and put yer decisions into real numbers for me?
I am, frankly, suspicious of vague "theorems" when presented
in unambiguous fashion like that.
Call up some Ancient Greek Guy's name, THEN I will start
taking you seriouslys!!
Cheers!
E"HT"L
++
.nosig
LawnBoy
Because the troller is very, very good and the trollees are,
well, very, very gullible.
--><--
LawnBoy
Kevin S. Wilson
<insertad...@wherever.com> wrote:
> You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is, for
>starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You first say that "it [a
prime number] is divisible by 2." Then you say "therefore it can't be
a prime number."
Excuse me? Time to put down the crack pipe.
Kevin S. Wilson
I appreciate the effort you've put forth in posting this
"explanation," but perhaps it would be best if you left this
discussion (and others involving complex maths) to people with some
experience in the discipline.
Johan Lindquist
Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> suddenly blurted:
> But this is the Usernet
ITYM "usenet".
cheers,
/Johan
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
5:22pm up 38 days, 18:02, 5 users, load average: 1.84, 1.89, 1.75
$ cat /dev/bollocks Registered Linux user #261729
target virtual content
Matthew Hyde
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:45:38 -0500, "jimmy"
> <insertad...@wherever.com> wrote:
>
> > You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is, for
> >starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number.
>
> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You first say that "it [a
> prime number] is divisible by 2." Then you say "therefore it can't be
> a prime number."
>
No, the "it" is the subject of the sentence, which is this guy's even
number. The fact that he mentioned prime numbers in the same sentence is
hardly surprising, math books often mention prime numbers in the same
sentence as a counterexample in order to explain it.
Matthew Hyde
Why, what's incorrect in his statement? So what if he doesn't know fast
exponentiation or factoring schemes, he at least made note of the fact that it
can lead to some involved math and showed some insight which the original poster
was lacking, to say the least. What are *you* doing?
Brian Osserman
>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>> I appreciate the effort you've put forth in posting this
>> "explanation," but perhaps it would be best if you left this
>> discussion (and others involving complex maths) to people with some
>> experience in the discipline.
>Why, what's incorrect in his statement? So what if he doesn't know fast
>exponentiation or factoring schemes, he at least made note of the fact that it
>can lead to some involved math and showed some insight which the original poster
>was lacking, to say the least. What are *you* doing?
For the record, I'm well aware of fast exponentiation and factoring
algorithms. I didn't bother to mention either because as I said, as far as I
can recall, neither will yield proofs of primality via elementary methods.
None of the factoring techniques more advanced than trial division (of which
the elliptic curve method is my favorite, mostly because unlike the
quadratic sieve, the idea is elegant enough that I still remember it some 5
years after learning about it) will ever yield a proof of primality. And the
vast majority of primality tests are heuristic. There are some
elliptic-curve based tests which can yield proofs reasonably quickly, but I
believe their run time analysis is highly conjectural. On the flip side,
there's a simple fast-exponentiation based test which is obviously quick,
but which only yields a proof of primality up to assumption of GRH. I was
simply trying to address the misconceptions of people in the thread at a
level suitable for general discussion.
Brian
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate the effort you've put forth in posting this
>> "explanation," but perhaps it would be best if you left this
>> discussion (and others involving complex maths) to people with some
>> experience in the discipline.
>
>Why, what's incorrect in his statement? So what if he doesn't know fast
>exponentiation or factoring schemes, he at least made note of the fact that it
>can lead to some involved math and showed some insight which the original poster
>was lacking, to say the least. What are *you* doing?
I think you know perfectly well what I'm doing.
revjack
: On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:45:38 -0500, "jimmy"
: <insertad...@wherever.com> wrote:
:> You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is, for
:>starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number.
: That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You first say that "it [a
: prime number] is divisible by 2." Then you say "therefore it can't be
: a prime number."
I thought primes were any mumber not divisible by zero or
two. Like "11" and "15".
--
___________________
rev...@revjack.net
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:45:38 -0500, "jimmy"
>> <insertad...@wherever.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is, for
>> >starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number.
>>
>> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You first say that "it [a
>> prime number] is divisible by 2." Then you say "therefore it can't be
>> a prime number."
>>
>
>No, the "it" is the subject of the sentence, which is this guy's even
>number.
Okay. Understood. "It" is "This guy's even number," which is the
credit card number in the original post.
> The fact that he mentioned prime numbers in the same sentence is
>hardly surprising, math books often mention prime numbers in the same
>sentence as a counterexample in order to explain it.
^^
"In order to explain it." Now hold on. You expect me to believe that
this guy's credit card number is in a bunch of math books? What are
the chances of that happening?
Kevin S. Wilson
<sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote:
>Tue, 23 Apr 2002 at 22:14 GMT, peering quizzically at his shoes,
>Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> suddenly blurted:
>> But this is the Usernet
>
>ITYM "usenet".
>
Typical newbie mistake. Try "The USENET," followed by a trademark
symbol (which I can't make on this computer).
Virgil
wrote:
> In article <vmhjr2-AA8015....@netnews.attbi.com> Virgil
> <vmh...@attbi.com> writes:
> > 10 is evenly divisible by 2, so 10*x is also.
>
> Eh, no, 10 is oddly divisible by 2.
Not as oddly as 5 is.
Zixia
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:29:14 GMT, Johan Lindquist
> <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote:
>
>>Tue, 23 Apr 2002 at 22:14 GMT, peering quizzically at his shoes,
>>Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> suddenly blurted:
>>> But this is the Usernet
>>
>>ITYM "usenet".
>>
> Typical newbie mistake. Try "The USENET," followed by a trademark
> symbol (which I can't make on this computer).
You missed out the 'R'. It's 'The Usernet'. I don't know why you feel
compelled to shout it out, either. It's not that exciting, dude.
--
@+------------+@
_o)| I am |(o_
/\\| Stealthy |//\
_\_V|____________|V_/_ http://www.clu.org.uk/
Zixia
<snip credit card number (4842 0557 1873 5472)--I don't want to post
that to the Usernet!>
> Newsflash: I bought Office 98, installed Word 98, highlighted
> your info, Ctrl C, opened Word 98, Ctrl V, Ctrl P, opened
> internet, looked at the paper, used your info.
I think your keyboard is borken, as you seem to have missed out a lot
of vowels in there. I can't understand what you're trying to do!
> I now have a 19" TV, color.
Cool! Can I come over and watch it with you? I can't afford one at
the moment, and my credit card seems to be maxed out.
Zixia
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:53:11 -0400, Matthew Hyde <mdo...@mtu.edu>
HOLY COW! No wonder there were some dodgy purchases on my card, if
it's in a load of maths books. Mind you, I'm surprised that
mathematicians didn't just spend it all on sandles and beard trimmers,
rather than the trips to the Bahamas that suddenly appeared on my
statement.
I'd better keep my new one more secret!
Zixia
> You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is,
I think I do. Doesn't it have something to do with matrex^Hces?
> for starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime
> number. Next it's divisable by 3 also. Not to mention 4, 6, and
> 9. Are you trying to get a number that is divisble by the most
> numbers? A prim number is divisble by only the number 1 and the
> number itself. Look at the number 3, what are the only whole
> numbers that 3 is divisble by? That's right 1 and 3, therefore it
> is prime. Look at 101, that is divisble by only 101 and 1.
And 7. 101 is divisible by 7.
> You want to know what that means....it means that it is prime. Now,
> a number, like yours, or 10. Is divisble by 1, 2, 5, and 10. That
> is more than just 1 and itself, therefore it is composite. Just
> like your number.
But is it a composite prime? That would still be pretty special for a
credit card number.
> Now, there is no such thing as a more prime
> number or a less prime number based soley on the fact of how many
> things it is divisble by. Now, once it is divisble by a number
> other than itself and one, there is NO chance of it being prime.
> Now, for your idiotic entertainment, try to find the 25 number
> between 0 and 101 inclusive, that are prime.
I don't know what you're trying to get at, but I don't think 25 is a
prime number. Could you please check your facts before posting
nonsense to this group? I always do.
Zixia
> Zixia wrote:
>
>> Ralph Jones devised a cunning plan:
>>
>> > On 23 Apr 2002 20:19:57 GMT, Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Dangermouse devised a cunning plan:
>> >>
>> >>> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think
>> >>>> it's a prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to
>> >>>> check that for sure, do they?
>> >>>
>> >>> That's not a prime number as the square root is not a whole
>> >>> number. One wonders if you even know what a prime number is.
>> >>
>> >>Maybe if you learnt some matrex multiplication you would be
>> >>able to work out your square roots better. I still think that
>> >>it has a good chance of being prime, what with all the odd
>> >>numbers in it. I'm just a bit busy right now to do all the
>> >>tedious calculations.
>> >
>> > Well, ummm...you could have started by noting that it's an even
>> > number, so it's not prime.
>>
>> Oh, I didn't realise it was an even number. Maybe it's only
>> half- prime, or whatever the term is? I think you need to divide
>> it by pi (22/3) to work that out, but I'm not sure how to do the
>> maths. That would still be pretty neat if it was half-prime.
>>
>
> You weren't sure you could do the maths, and yet you posted that
> you thought you had found a prime number.
I could have done the maths, but I was busy posting stuff to the
Usernet at the time.
> Nevermind that number theory research is a huge subject, just tell
> us, what algorithm did you use to get that many digits,
Um, I didn't use an algorithm, the credit card company just sent it to
me. What with all the odd numbers and everything, I thought it could
be prime. Call it a gut feeling, if you like.
> and could you not check the list of known primes, which goes beyond
> that number you found?
Well, sure, it may go BEYOND my number, but who is to say that they
have found all of them in-between?
> And you didn't find it, either--it's always been there.
I never claimed that I did find it. It was posted to me.
All I wanted was for someone to check to see if it was a prime number,
because I was excited at the prospect of having one in my possession.
You didn't even post the htpp: to that big list of numbers that you
have.
Zixia
> terrell gibbs <tgi...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <Xns91FAE8F...@130.133.1.4>, Zixia
>><ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph Jones devised a cunning plan:
>>>
>>> > On 23 Apr 2002 20:19:57 GMT, Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Dangermouse devised a cunning plan:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think
>>> >>>> it's a prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to
>>> >>>> check that for sure, do they?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> That's not a prime number as the square root is not a whole
>>> >>> number. One wonders if you even know what a prime number is.
>>> >>
>>> >>Maybe if you learnt some matrex multiplication you would be
>>> >>able to work out your square roots better. I still think that
>>> >>it has a good chance of being prime, what with all the odd
>>> >>numbers in it. I'm just a bit busy right now to do all the
>>> >>tedious calculations.
>>> >
>>> > Well, ummm...you could have started by noting that it's an
>>> > even number, so it's not prime.
>>>
>>> Oh, I didn't realise it was an even number. Maybe it's only
>>> half- prime, or whatever the term is? I think you need to
>>> divide it by pi (22/3) to work that out, but I'm not sure how to
>>> do the maths. That would still be pretty neat if it was
>>> half-prime.
>>
>>If the last digit of a number is even, the number is even. And if
>>the sum of the digits of a number is evenly dividable by 3, then 3
>>is a factor.
>>
>>Dividing an integer by pi will yield a non-integer. 22/7 is only
>>an approximation for pi.
>>
>>I don't know what this business is about the square root of a
>>prime being a whole number--it's the other way around; the square
>>root of a prime can *not* be a whole number.
>
> I hope to God everyone posting in this thread (Terrell and Ralph
> excepted) is only joking. Let's review: a number is prime if and
> only if it has no (positive integer) divisors other than itself
> and 1. An even number other than 2 is never prime, since 2 divides
> it. Terrell gave a way of checking if a number is divisible by 3
> (note that one can repeat this to make it very fast: add up the
> digits, then add them up again, then add them up again, etc, until
> you get a number that is obviously divisible by 3 or not).
But if you do that then as soon as you start adding the numbers up, you
end up with a different number from the one you started with. How's
that going to help? I am already pretty sure that 3 will divide by 3
(I just checked with Windows Calculator, and it does--hurrah!), so I
don't need to add up lots of other numbers to see if 3 divides by 3 or
not. To be honest, I don't see how it would save time, either.
> But, you cannot check if a large number is prime anywhere near that
> naively. The only naive way of checking (and this might be where
> the rather odd square root statement came from) would be to make
> sure that no prime number less than (or equal to) the square root
> of the your number divides it evenly. However, this takes a rather
> long time for large number.
I don't think I am doing anything during lunch at work tomorrow, which
will give me half-an-hour or so to work on it. If you could let me
know what I need to do, I will report back with the definitive result
on whether my number is a prime number or not!
> There are faster ways of doing it, but
> they get very sophisticated very quickly. Unfortunately, I don't
> know of any provably fast way of proving a number is prime that
> uses elementary methods. It is very non-trivial mathematics. And
> with the exception of the final digit, the number of even or odd
> digits shouldn't say anything about the chances of it being prime,
> I don't think (not that I can actually come up with a proof of
> that at the moment, but it feels like it should be somehow related
> to Dirichlet's theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions).
What have seige engines got to do with prime numbers?
GerardS
|> jimmy devised a cunning plan:
|> You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is,
|
| I think I do. Doesn't it have something to do with matrex^Hces?
|
|> for starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime
|> number. Next it's divisable by 3 also. Not to mention 4, 6, and
|> 9. Are you trying to get a number that is divisble by the most
|> numbers? A prim number is divisble by only the number 1 and the
|> number itself. Look at the number 3, what are the only whole
|> numbers that 3 is divisble by? That's right 1 and 3, therefore it
|> is prime. Look at 101, that is divisble by only 101 and 1.
|
| And 7. 101 is divisible by 7.
Yeah, well, 101 IS divisble by 7: 101/7=14.42857+
But, it's not EVENLY divisble by 7. ======================== Gerard S.
Brian Osserman
>But if you do that then as soon as you start adding the numbers up, you
>end up with a different number from the one you started with. How's
>that going to help? I am already pretty sure that 3 will divide by 3
>(I just checked with Windows Calculator, and it does--hurrah!), so I
>don't need to add up lots of other numbers to see if 3 divides by 3 or
>not. To be honest, I don't see how it would save time, either.
Well, to be honest, I don't know that it's really quicker. But if you're
doing something in your head, for instance, I think it's easier to look at
21343435 and say "hm, the digits of that add up to 25, and that's not a
multiple of 3" than it is to actually try dividing by 3 and seeing if you
get a remainder. The point about being able to iterate multiple times is
kind of neat, though: say you didn't have your multiplication tables
memorized, and you didn't know off the top of your head whether 25 was a
multiple of 3. You can repeat the process again to get 7, which is very
obviously not a multiple of 3, which implies that 25 isn't which implies
that 21343435 isn't.
>I don't think I am doing anything during lunch at work tomorrow, which
>will give me half-an-hour or so to work on it. If you could let me
>know what I need to do, I will report back with the definitive result
>on whether my number is a prime number or not!
The thing to do would be to write a C program which goes through all the
numbers* less than the square root of your number, and checks whether any of
them divide it evenly. Of course, as someone else pointed out, there are
tables. And there are also prewritten programs that will check this for you.
>What have seige engines got to do with prime numbers?
Nothing comes to mind.
Brian
* It is enough to check all prime numbers, but it can be kind of a pain for
this sort of thing to worry about whether your smaller numbers are prime.
What you lose in run time you more than gain in programming time, at least
to check a single number. However, it does make it a lot faster to, after
checking 2, only check odd numbers. Or, after checking 2 and 3, only check
numbers which are either 6k+1 or 6k+5.
Zixia
If it can be divided by another number that isn't prime, like 7, does
that mean 101 isn't prime, as that other chap seemed to think?
> But, it's not EVENLY divisble by 7.
That's because 7 is an odd number, right? I may not be able to work
out whether large numbers are odd or even, like my original number
(4842 0557 1873 5472), but small numbers are a bit easier to deal with.
Zixia
> On 24 Apr 2002 17:08:37 GMT, Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> devised a cunning plan:
>>
>>> Zixia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dangermouse devised a cunning plan:
>>>>
>>>> > Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I got 4842 0557 1873 5472, which is pretty neat, as I think
>>>> >> it's a prime number! I don't suppose anyone knows how to
>>>> >> check that for sure, do they?
>>>> >
>>>> > That's not a prime number as the square root is not a whole
>>>> > number. One wonders if you even know what a prime number is.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if you learnt some matrex multiplication you would be
>>>> able to work out your square roots better. I still think that
>>>> it has a good chance of being prime, what with all the odd
>>>> numbers in it. I'm just a bit busy right now to do all the
>>>> tedious calculations.
>>>>
>>> Not likely that it is prime. A prime number is one that is NOT
>>> divisible by any number other than ONE or itself. Seems it is
>>> divisible by at least the number TWO. I didn't try any others.
>>
>>Well, okay, so my number is divisible by two, but what about all
>>the other numbers? I still think there is a good chance of it
>>being prime.
>
> There is *no* chance of it being prime. It is NOT prime.
Really? Oh well. I knew it was too good to be true.
> You just don't seem to be getting this. A prime number is an
> integer that is not the product of any pair of integers other than
> itself and 1. Your number is the product of 2 and
> 2421027859367736. Therefore it is not prime.
Um, okay. I think I get it now.
> By the way, it is also the product of 4 and 1210513929683868.
>
> Or 8 and 605256964841934.
>
> Or 16 and 302628482420967.
So is that last number, 302628482420967, a prime number? It ends in a
seven, so it's bound to stand a good chance, right?
John Reilly
news:aa7o3f$2d1$1...@galois.mit.edu...
> I hope to God everyone posting in this thread (Terrell and Ralph
> excepted) is only joking.
Take a look at where this thread is being cross-posted.
Impressive how seriously some people have taken it though.
--
John
(Remove NOSPAM) to Reply
------------------------------------------------
"Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because... this is just a ride."
- Bill Hicks
Mike Oliver
> I don't know what you're trying to get at, but I don't think 25 is a
> prime number. Could you please check your facts before posting
> nonsense to this group? I always do.
And don't think we're not grateful. I like the way
you phrased that.
jimmy
number, a VISA to be more specific. Just thought I'd let everyone know that
this individual put his credit card number in his thread.
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
Heh-heh. The slower among us, like me, are grateful to you
for pointing this out - took me a second to see what you
"liked" about it... heh-heh.
David C. Ullrich
Brian Osserman
>"Brian Osserman" <osse...@math.mit.edu> wrote in message
>Impressive how seriously some people have taken it though.
Yeah, I did notice the cross-posting, and even have some comprehension of
the significance thereof. Which is why I started off the post the way I did.
At the same time, given that sci.econ is also in the crossposting list, it
seemed like it couldn't hurt to play straightman and see if someone might
learn something. I so rarely get to talk number theory on usenet.
Brian
Dave Rusin
Zixia <zi...@clu.org.uk> wrote:
>> Yeah, well, 101 IS divisble by 7: 101/7=14.42857+
>
>If it can be divided by another number that isn't prime, like 7, does
>that mean 101 isn't prime, as that other chap seemed to think?
>
>> But, it's not EVENLY divisble by 7.
>
>That's because 7 is an odd number, right? I may not be able to work
>out whether large numbers are odd or even, like my original number
>(4842 0557 1873 5472), but small numbers are a bit easier to deal with.
In sci.math we have a related thread now, asking for a rendering of
9.223372036854E18 as an integer. It is hard to tell whether these
big ones are even or odd, isn't it? Not to mention prime or composite!
But you're forgetting that "prime" and "composite" don't partition
the numbers. It's just like in topology where "open" and "closed"
aren't opposites. "Open" means "complement of a closed set", and
likewise to establish that 4842 0557 1873 5472 is prime, you have
to show that its _complement_ is composite. Which it is. Prime, too!
Just as topologists have "clopen" sets which are both, this number
is "promposite". (Or is that "crime"?)
dave
Xcott Craver
>
>>and being evenly divisible by a whole number greater than 1 is the
>>definition of 'not prime'.
>
>I think you mean "unprime."
I'm not sure what he means at all. Maybe "double-plus unprime?"
>Kevin S. Wilson
-X
Dik T. Winter
Reminds me. Wasn't 2 the oddest prime of all?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Daniel Buettner
> Christmas Ape devised a cunning plan:
>
> <snip credit card number (4842 0557 1873 5472)--I don't want to post
> that to the Usernet!>
>
>> Newsflash: I bought Office 98, installed Word 98, highlighted
>> your info, Ctrl C, opened Word 98, Ctrl V, Ctrl P, opened
>> internet, looked at the paper, used your info.
>
> I think your keyboard is borken, as you seem to have missed out a lot
> of vowels in there. I can't understand what you're trying to do!
I'm not sure, but I think he's trying to say that he somehow
used Microsoft Office to commit credit card fraud. However,
I'm completely baffled as to why it was necessary to use an
out of date version of Word to commit the crime. I don't
think Word can connect to the internet.
>> I now have a 19" TV, color.
>
> Cool! Can I come over and watch it with you? I can't afford one at
> the moment, and my credit card seems to be maxed out.
See??? I think may be he hax0red your computer and stole
your credit card number!
--
~
~
~
"Daniel Buettner" line 4 of 4 --100%--
Daniel Buettner
> The thing to do would be to write a C program which goes through all the
> numbers* less than the square root of your number, and checks whether any of
> them divide it evenly. Of course, as someone else pointed out, there are
> tables. And there are also prewritten programs that will check this for you.
Well, what if he wants to check if a number bigger than
32767 is prime? That'll make Mr int overflow and then he
won't get anywhere! And you don't want to use floating
point maths, cos you can't test whether the remainder of
division is EXACTLY zero. I think one should use a more
maths oriented language like LISP which has infinite
precision integers.
> * It is enough to check all prime numbers, but it can be kind of a pain for
> this sort of thing to worry about whether your smaller numbers are prime.
> What you lose in run time you more than gain in programming time, at least
> to check a single number. However, it does make it a lot faster to, after
> checking 2, only check odd numbers. Or, after checking 2 and 3, only check
> numbers which are either 6k+1 or 6k+5.
This sounds suspiciously like the Sieve of Aristotle. You
should write the primes into a file as you find them so that
you don't need to recompute the smaller primes next time the
program runs!
Gregory King
Virgil <vmh...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> 4,842,055,718,735,472 = 10*x + 2 for some integer x whose value is
> of no importance to the analysis.
>
Could you please explain why it's value is of no importance? I am trying
to understand your proof, but its rather difficult. I think I am ok with
the last three lines, but this first one has got me confused. How do you
know x is an integer if you can't solve for it?
>
> 10 is evenly divisible by 2, so 10*x is also.
>
> 2 is evenly divisible by 2.
>
> Thus 10*x+2 is evenly divisible by 2.
>
> Whatever steps are not given in excruciating detail in my analysis
> can be easily supplied by anyone not as totally innumerate as you
> are presenting yourself to be.
This last part wasn't directed at me, was it? This is my first post in
this discussion topic.
--
(\ _ /)
(_|(_)|_) Greg
_/ \_ http://flyingpawn.com
|_____|
David DeLaney
>A reading of a few posts in news:alt.religion.kibology will quickly convince
>you of the highly kibological nature of this number. Better yet, if we use
>33625386935663 as a repunit that repeats infinitely, then we have a _P-ADIC_
>number, which would make a perverse connection to the 'one atom universe'
>and [through the process of nuclear fusion] would absorb a tremendous amount
>of energy. That energy has got to go somewhere [laws of conservation and
>all that] and so we might expect Kibo's dog Spot to become so energized that
>he would finally make it into Mensa.
Or bits of him would, anyway.
Dave "made them look!" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>> Maybe if you learnt some matrex multiplication you would be able to
>> work out your square roots better. I still think that it has a good
>> chance of being prime, what with all the odd numbers in it. I'm just a
>> bit busy right now to do all the tedious calculations.
>
>Not likely that it is prime. A prime number is one
I don't think so, actually.
>that is NOT
>divisible by any number other than ONE or itself.
But ONE _is_ itself! I sense a flaw in your logic! Later you will subtract
some statements and try to divide me by zero, I'm a-feared!
> Seems it is divisible
>by at least the number TWO. I didn't try any others.
If your ONE is divisible by TWO I think I'm glad you stopped there.
Dave "-1 is prime, of course" DeLaney
David DeLaney
> sp...@jwgh.org (Jacob W. Haller) wrote:
>> jimmy <insertad...@wherever.com> wrote:
>> > You stupid shit, do you have any clue what a prime number is, for
>> > starters, it is divisible by 2, therefore it can't be a prime number.
>>
>> _evenly_ divisible by 2? Clearly, if it isn't, the question of its
>> primeness is left open.
>
>Look, this is obviously someone's idea of a troll, why is everyone
>getting upset?
Because they were forced to answer!
Dave "argggh, it's driving me nuts" DeLaney
David DeLaney
>> that this guy's credit card number is in a bunch of math books?
>> What are the chances of that happening?
>
>HOLY COW! No wonder there were some dodgy purchases on my card, if
>it's in a load of maths books. Mind you, I'm surprised that
>mathematicians didn't just spend it all on sandles and beard trimmers,
We don't _need_ to buy beard trimmers, we've used the same ones for years now.
>I'd better keep my new one more secret!
Dave "I already know it's got 'one more' in it, from which I deduce..." DeLaney
Boogie with Stu
|
| > and could you not check the list of known primes, which goes beyond
| > that number you found?
|
| Well, sure, it may go BEYOND my number, but who is to say that they
| have found all of them in-between?
|
| > And you didn't find it, either--it's always been there.
|
| I never claimed that I did find it. It was posted to me.
|
| All I wanted was for someone to check to see if it was a prime number,
| because I was excited at the prospect of having one in my possession.
| You didn't even post the htpp: to that big list of numbers that you
| have.
|
|
Just send $25.00 CASH (I think 25 dollars is a prime but only in US dollars)
to:
GIANT List of Prime Numbers
1499 Delaney Way
Egmont, WA 99761
We will process you order promptly.
--
You can't spell PLO without L-O-V-E - except for the V and E.
Boogie with Stu
Brian Osserman
>Well, what if he wants to check if a number bigger than
>32767 is prime? That'll make Mr int overflow and then he
>won't get anywhere! And you don't want to use floating
>point maths, cos you can't test whether the remainder of
>division is EXACTLY zero. I think one should use a more
>maths oriented language like LISP which has infinite
>precision integers.
Heh, yeah, you'll want to use an arbitrary-precision int library. I'm
sure they're around, although I fully admit to not having actually tracked
one down before.
>This sounds suspiciously like the Sieve of Aristotle. You
>should write the primes into a file as you find them so that
>you don't need to recompute the smaller primes next time the
>program runs!
Erastosthenes (I'd be amazed if I spelled that right), I think you mean.
Of course, doing that would be an option (as would having a table of "small"
primes going up to the square root of your number), but these take space. A
rather large amount of it. So, it's kind of a tradeoff. You can have speed
but use space, or be very space-efficient at the price of taking
substantially longer. Of course, in practice this isn't how factoring is
done at all.
Brian