On Tuesday, 98/08/18, Bill Birrell wrote to David Noon about "primes" as
follows:

Hi Bill,

BB> Thank you for your assurances, David.

You're welcome.

BB>  > I can assure you that 1 is _not_ a prime.
BB> 
BB>     Then explain to me why a number which can be evenly 
BB> divided only by itself and one is not a prime. That is the 
BB> definition of a prime is it not?

It is not.

Primes are also required to be strictly greater than 1, which is why 2
qualifies but 1 does not. They must also be integers, so I shall assume the
adjective "natural" ahead of the noun "number" in your
definition. [Or do you
still use "Diophantine"?]

See my post to Robin Sheppard about ambiguous prime factorization for one
reason why this lower bound should be so.

BB>  > However, 2 is a prime so the programs need correction.
BB> 
BB>     So we actually agree.

I suppose 50% constitutes a pass. ... :-)

Regards

Dave


 * KWQ/2 1.2i * Windows 95: Why is the lesser product more expensive? That's WARPed!
--- Maximus/2 3.01