Bug Report: Construct 7 mechanic is wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CKNovel

Quarante-douze.

---

https://i.ibb.co/SfKgZWx/aegxzne.jpg

Oh my god, forty-twelve is not a number. This is the caliber of people thinking 1 is not indivisible.

Please delete this post mods. I'm so sick of getting bullied and trolled by people who don't have common sense and I need it to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynlar

snip

---

Yeah, the way they teach prime numbers doesn't help. Basically, prime factorization specifically excludes 1 because it muddles the entire process. Which is partially why the entire debate on if 1 is a prime number ended with it getting its own special term. Aside from the fundamental theorem, they'd have to change a bunch of definitions for primes specifically to make special exceptions for 1. It mostly has to do with language than actual math, tbh.

"A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers. A natural number greater than 1 that is not prime is called a composite number. For example, 5 is prime because the only ways of writing it as a product, 1 × 5 or 5 × 1, involve 5 itself. However, 4 is composite because it is a product (2 × 2) in which both numbers are smaller than 4. Primes are central in number theory because of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic: every natural number greater than 1 is either a prime itself or can be factorized as a product of primes that is unique up to their order."

My reaction when this happened to me was:
"What? 1 is not a prime number. Well you always learn something new."

I then checked later the definition of a prime number because I was curious and I continued my day with a bit more knowledge.

Venandi is bad at math, confirmed.

1 is divisible by 1, it's just that the result of that division is 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Venandi

Please delete this post mods. I'm so sick of getting bullied and trolled by people who don't have common sense and I need it to stop.

---

If you stop posting, it will stop. That's common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Venandi

You:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...2.52.46_PM.png

---

I guess I need to put /s on my comments for you.
Next you say november is winter, oh wait.

The problem is the language of Maths is very specific and unless you get the exact wording in regards to explaining something, there will always be wiggle room.

There are several reasons why 1 is not considered Prime. Obviously, the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic has been stated. This reads, 'Every positive integer (greater than 1) can be represented in exactly ONE way apart from rearrangements as a product of more than one prime. (from Wolfram Alpha)

The main thing to take away here is 'exactly one'. By allowing 1 to be a prime number, you open up avenues for every number having an infinite number of prime factorizations, after all, you can just keep multiplying by 1 and get the same result.

You also get clues in the definitions of Primes themselves. That being a number that can only be divided by itself AND one.

Again, very specific wording. The 'and' in important as that implies two, distinct numbers must be able to divide by the original number. 1 can only divide into itself, so it does not have 2 unique divisors.

If yo also take into account all the mathematical proofs out there, the vast majority of them, when talking about prime numbers, would have to exclude 1 as being prime. It is just easier to assume 1 is not prime and if you need 1 to be 'prime' for your proof, you just state 'all primes including 1'.

At the end of the day, it is all arbitrary. The universe has not forced this upon us, this is all the language of maths and it can change, just like any other spoken language. Somethings probably will not change, but some definitions might need to be updated with the advent of new discoveries. At this moment in time, 1 is not a prime by definition.