| View Poll Results: Can negative numbers be prime ? | |||
| Yes |
|
2 | 18.18% |
| No |
|
9 | 81.82% |
| Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
Go4Expert Founder
|
![]() |
| 4Aug2009,21:31 | #11 |
|
Banned
|
|
| 7Aug2009,18:39 | #12 |
|
so now does this means NO wins ?
|
|
~ Б0ЯИ Τ0 С0δЭ ~
|
![]() |
| 7Aug2009,18:52 | #13 |
|
Saket
like this
|
|
Banned
|
|
| 7Aug2009,20:38 | #14 |
|
Ohh, congrs to kshiteej. thanks saswatpadhi for your answer.
|
|
Mentor
|
![]() |
| 9Aug2009,01:27 | #15 |
|
This is just about definitions so the only possible answer can be "no". For a "Yes" answer the definitions must be changed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number states "a prime number (or a prime) is a natural number which has exactly two distinct natural number divisors: 1 and itself" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number states "there are two conventions for the set of natural numbers: it is either the set of positive integers {1, 2, 3, ...} according to the traditional definition or the set of non-negative integers {0, 1, 2, ...}" - so this excludes all negative numbers from the definition of a prime. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisor states "a divisor of an integer n, also called a factor of n, is an integer which evenly divides n without leaving a remainder." Also if primes are redefined to include x<0, why is that of any interest? If x is prime then -x is also prime, so adding -2, -3, -5, -7 etc to the list adds no new information. Or you end up with no prime numbers at all, if for example -5 is divisible by -5, -1, 1 and 5, so every prime number by the current definition is not prime because any number x is divisible by +x, -x, +1 and -1. Or you extend the definition to say "exactly four distinct divisors: +/- 1 and +/- itself", in which case you're back to a set of primes where +x and -x are both prime or both not prime and so it has no benefit over the positive numbers only definition as is currently the case.
mayjune
like this
|
|
Contributor
|
|
| 23Aug2009,11:53 | #16 |
|
no negative no. cannot be prime... i agree with shabir's points.
|
|
~ Б0ЯИ Τ0 С0δЭ ~
|
![]() |
| 23Aug2009,14:16 | #17 |
|
Wow, this thread is still alive and kicking !!
![]() But, I request all members to give a justification for their vote, without which it's meaningless. If you agree with someone's views like xpi0t0s, mayjune or shabbir (all of them have almost similar reasons, though ); just mention their name .. no need to write the same justification again
|







); just mention their name .. no need to write the same justification again