Musatov wrote: Musatov wrote: Musatov wrote: Musatov wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote: Musatov said: On Jun 26, 1:20 pm, John H. Guillory <jo...@communicomm.com> wrote: <snip> So would that make 3.25 a prime number? A decimal number is not by classical definition prime. Numbers aren't decimal. They're numbers. Decimal is a system for /representing/ numbers textually.
Though if you have an idea of a decimal equivalent of primality, I would love to hear it.
My intention with this reference is providing a means to interface between prime numbers to the left of the decimal point and decimal numbers to the right of the decimal point. Perhaps a system where 3.17 refers to two primes, and this sense I am speaking mostly toward computation, but again I assert, numbers to the left or right of the decimal, are still just numbers.
I have always been fascinated by this notion:
Numerically, our representations do not appear uniform instinctually, to me at least.
Here is an example. If we say, "What 10 is to 20 is not what 2.2 is to 3.3," is there any truth in proportion to justify this assertion in physics or mathematics?
We are simply counting.
10 is to 20 ...is... 20 is 2x 10 2.2 is to 3.3 ...is... 3.3 is 1.5x 2.2 ...or... 1/2 of 2.2+2.2=3.3 ...or... 1/2 of 2.2=1.1*3=3.33
1 and 1/2 of 2.2=3.3 ...or... 1.5 of 2.2=3.3 So there is a split of
Theorem: use of a set of given quantities.
Rule: adding the set produces at least the product.
Proof(1a): 1 apple + 2 apples + 3 apples=6 apples.
Proof(1b):1 apple * 2 apples * 3 apples=6 apples.
Proof(2a): 5 apples + 4 apples + 6 apples =15 apples.
Proof(2b): 5 apples * 4 apples * 6 apples=120 apples.
Contradiction: in the above example the sum=1.5 and the product=1.2.
Fallacy: Multiplying quantities of items does not shrink them. This applies to measurements and transforms.