This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SomeMichGuy · M
Nope.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@SomeMichGuy Ok, so then which one isn’t?
SomeMichGuy · M
@Luke73 You need to review the definition of a prime number.
When you do, you'll realize that there can ONLY be ONE even prime number (2).
All other EVEN numbers are, by definition, evenly divisible by 2, making them NON-prime (I think they are called "composite" numbers or some such term, but that terminology isn't anywhere near as important as the sets [integers, rationals, reals, irrationals, complex, etc.]).
And the only PRIME number divisible by 3 IS 3 (by definition...). Any other number evenly divisible by 3 is NOT a prime number.
When you do, you'll realize that there can ONLY be ONE even prime number (2).
All other EVEN numbers are, by definition, evenly divisible by 2, making them NON-prime (I think they are called "composite" numbers or some such term, but that terminology isn't anywhere near as important as the sets [integers, rationals, reals, irrationals, complex, etc.]).
And the only PRIME number divisible by 3 IS 3 (by definition...). Any other number evenly divisible by 3 is NOT a prime number.
DrWatson · 70-79, M
@SomeMichGuy He knows what a prime number is. This post illustrates a "vacuously true " statement. Like "The sum of the interior angles of every four-sided triangle is 32 degrees." Or, "Every Muslim Republican candidate for US President has won their election."
SomeMichGuy · M
@DrWatson Ah, an ass. ok.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@SomeMichGuy I define the set of numbers that are prime numbers, greater than two and divisable by 3 which, of course, is the empty set. And for every number in that set, the statement holds that every number is divisible by three.
It's like saying I've never lost a game to the best chess player.
It's like saying I've never lost a game to the best chess player.
SomeMichGuy · M
@Luke73 No more time for you.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment