A Conversation for Mersenne Numbers

Thanks

Post 1

Agnostic Primist (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71) Started conversation Aug 2, 2003

Thanks for this interesting article on prime numbers.

BTW, why don't mathematicians consider (3-2) (you know, the first number) to be prime?

reply

Thanks

Post 2

Gnomon - time to move on Posted Aug 2, 2003

In the time of Mersenne, 1 was considered a prime number, but now it isn't. I suppose the reason is because 1 is different from all the other prime numbers. Other prime numbers have two divisors: 1 and themselves. 1 has also got 1 and itself as divisors, but that still makes only one divisor. So as a mater of convention, it is not considered to be a prime number.

reply

Thanks

Post 3

Agnostic Primist (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71) Posted Aug 2, 2003

Thanks.

2+3=5
2+3+5+7=17
2+3+5+7+11+13=41

reply

Subscribe | Unsubscribe

Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more