Friam

Oh my gawd...

Classic

List

Threaded

25 messages Options

Robert J. Cordingley

Oh my gawd...

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_numbers 1 isn't a prime
number any more. Can someone explain (translate) the reason for this
shift in the cosmos?
Where's Henri when you need him? (You have to see the wiki article.)
Robert C

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Greg Sonnenfeld

Re: Oh my gawd...

Apparently it hasn't been a prime since wikipedia started. Though what
is a prime is simply a matter of definition as are most mathematical
constructs. (Though some fit the physical world rather well. )

> "A '''prime number''', or '''prime''' for short, is a [[natural number]] larger than 1 that has as its only positive [[divisor]]s ([[factors]]) 1 and itself. "
- Revision as of 20:42, 5 December 2001 (edit)
Hagedis

*************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

"Junior programmers create simple solutions to simple problems. Senior
programmers create complex solutions to complex problems. Great
programmers find simple solutions to complex problems. The code
written by topnotch programmers may appear obvious, once it is
finished, but it is vastly more difficult to create."

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_numbers 1 isn't a prime
> number any more. Can someone explain (translate) the reason for this shift
> in the cosmos?
> Where's Henri when you need him? (You have to see the wiki article.)
> Robert C
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russell Standish

Re: Oh my gawd...

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:29:24PM -0700, Greg Sonnenfeld wrote:

> Apparently it hasn't been a prime since wikipedia started. Though what
> is a prime is simply a matter of definition as are most mathematical
> constructs. (Though some fit the physical world rather well. )
>
> > "A '''prime number''', or '''prime''' for short, is a [[natural number]] larger than 1 that has as its only positive [[divisor]]s ([[factors]]) 1 and itself. "
> - Revision as of 20:42, 5 December 2001 (edit)
> Hagedis
>
>
>
> *************************
> Greg Sonnenfeld
>
>
> "Junior programmers create simple solutions to simple problems. Senior
> programmers create complex solutions to complex problems. Great
> programmers find simple solutions to complex problems. The code
> written by topnotch programmers may appear obvious, once it is
> finished, but it is vastly more difficult to create."
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_numbers 1 isn't a prime
> > number any more. Can someone explain (translate) the reason for this shift
> > in the cosmos?
> > Where's Henri when you need him? (You have to see the wiki article.)
> > Robert C
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: Oh my gawd...

From the wikipedia article under the subheading Primality of one:

"...Derrick Norman Lehmer's list of primes up to 10,006,721, reprinted as late as 1956,[5] started with 1 as its first prime.[6] Henri Lebesgue is said to be the last professional mathematician to call 1 prime.[7]"

Henri died in 1941. Perhaps it takes awhile for the word to get around.
Robert C

On 12/8/11 2:17 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:29:24PM -0700, Greg Sonnenfeld wrote:

Apparently it hasn't been a prime since wikipedia started. Though what
is a prime is simply a matter of definition as are most mathematical
constructs. (Though some fit the physical world rather well. )

"A '''prime number''', or '''prime''' for short, is a [[natural number]] larger than 1 that has as its only positive [[divisor]]s ([[factors]]) 1 and itself. "

- Revision as of 20:42, 5 December 2001 (edit)
Hagedis



*************************
Greg Sonnenfeld


"Junior programmers create simple solutions to simple problems. Senior
programmers create complex solutions to complex problems. Great
programmers find simple solutions to complex problems. The code
written by topnotch programmers may appear obvious, once it is
finished, but it is vastly more difficult to create."




On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
[hidden email] wrote:

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_numbers 1 isn't a prime
number any more.  Can someone explain (translate) the reason for this shift
in the cosmos?
Where's Henri when you need him? (You have to see the wiki article.)
Robert C

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcos

Re: Oh my gawd...

In reply to this post by Russell Standish

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Pamela McCorduck

Re: Oh my gawd...

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well,
it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous
case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]
> > wrote:
>> Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...
>
> Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
> once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:
>
> "Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"
>
> That's how I remember.
>
> Mark
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

George Duncan-2

Re: Oh my gawd...

In reply to this post by Marcos

Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary

725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard

Greg Sonnenfeld

Re: Oh my gawd...

I'm also a big fine of using a single standard definition for apriori
structures in formal logic. The semantics convolution caused by
"individual" definitions in normal speech is bad enough. I'm sure
some one has come up with a good name for the set of 1 and the primes,
and such terminology should be used when appropriate or a simple
definition of the new set given.

****************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

"Junior programmers create simple solutions to simple problems. Senior
programmers create complex solutions to complex problems. Great
programmers find simple solutions to complex problems. The code
written by topnotch programmers may appear obvious, once it is
finished, but it is vastly more difficult to create."

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM, George Duncan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a
>
> mathematician
>
> it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like
> the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has
> unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1.
> So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.
>
> statistician
>
> do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries
> define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view
> usage says 1 is not prime
>
> artist
>
> try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime.
> I didn't see any.
>
> Cheers, Duncan
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it
>> depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.
>>
>> PMcC
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...
>>>
>>>
>>> Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
>>> once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:
>>>
>>> "Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"
>>>
>>> That's how I remember.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> George Duncan
> georgeduncanart.com
> (505) 983-6895
> Represented by ViVO Contemporary
> 725 Canyon Road
> Santa Fe, NM 87501
>
> Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
> Soren Kierkegaard
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: Oh my gawd...

In reply to this post by George Duncan-2

Shouldn't theorems be independent of arbitrary decisions regarding what is or is not a prime number? Otherwise I'll have to believe that mathematicians are just making up stuff.

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:

Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary

725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Greg Sonnenfeld

Re: Oh my gawd...

> Shouldn't theorems be independent of arbitrary decisions regarding what is or is not a prime number? Otherwise I'll have to believe that mathematicians are just making up stuff.

Within a school of thought they are. Occasionally people make
different assumptions about one thing or another (the axiom of choice
for example) and two schools of proofs, with different assumption,
arise. When writing such papers the author usually states these
assumptions.

Though it looks like primes have had an uncontested definition for a
long period of time so I wouldn't worry about it. ( It would be
interesting if someone could point out a paper where 1 was assumed a
prime and it had mathematical consequences beyond incrementing an
index. )

****************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Shouldn't theorems be independent of arbitrary decisions regarding what is
> or is not a prime number? Otherwise I'll have to believe that
> mathematicians are just making up stuff.
>
>
>
> On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
>
> Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a
>
> mathematician
>
> it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like
> the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has
> unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1.
> So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.
>
> statistician
>
> do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries
> define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view
> usage says 1 is not prime
>
> artist
>
> try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime.
> I didn't see any.
>
> Cheers, Duncan
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it
>> depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.
>>
>> PMcC
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...
>>>
>>>
>>> Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
>>> once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:
>>>
>>> "Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"
>>>
>>> That's how I remember.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> George Duncan
> georgeduncanart.com
> (505) 983-6895
> Represented by ViVO Contemporary
> 725 Canyon Road
> Santa Fe, NM 87501
>
> Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
> Soren Kierkegaard
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Greg Sonnenfeld

Re: Oh my gawd...

I did a bit of a search and one article explains 1 isn't defined in
the set of primes because it would make theorems involving primes,
where 1 would be an exception easier to write. (e.g. you don't have to
put the exclusion, "this is true for all primes except 1").

Mind that both would yield the same result, one is just reduces to a
less wordy abstraction than the other.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57058.html

****************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

"Junior programmers create simple solutions to simple problems. Senior
programmers create complex solutions to complex problems. Great
programmers find simple solutions to complex problems. The code
written by topnotch programmers may appear obvious, once it is
finished, but it is vastly more difficult to create."

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Shouldn't theorems be independent of arbitrary decisions regarding what is or is not a prime number? Otherwise I'll have to believe that mathematicians are just making up stuff.
>
> Within a school of thought they are. Occasionally people make
> different assumptions about one thing or another (the axiom of choice
> for example) and two schools of proofs, with different assumption,
> arise. When writing such papers the author usually states these
> assumptions.
>
> Though it looks like primes have had an uncontested definition for a
> long period of time so I wouldn't worry about it. ( It would be
> interesting if someone could point out a paper where 1 was assumed a
> prime and it had mathematical consequences beyond incrementing an
> index. )
>
> ****************************
> Greg Sonnenfeld
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Shouldn't theorems be independent of arbitrary decisions regarding what is
>> or is not a prime number? Otherwise I'll have to believe that
>> mathematicians are just making up stuff.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a
>>
>> mathematician
>>
>> it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like
>> the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has
>> unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1.
>> So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.
>>
>> statistician
>>
>> do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries
>> define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view
>> usage says 1 is not prime
>>
>> artist
>>
>> try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime.
>> I didn't see any.
>>
>> Cheers, Duncan
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it
>>> depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.
>>>
>>> PMcC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
>>>> once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:
>>>>
>>>> "Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"
>>>>
>>>> That's how I remember.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> George Duncan
>> georgeduncanart.com
>> (505) 983-6895
>> Represented by ViVO Contemporary
>> 725 Canyon Road
>> Santa Fe, NM 87501
>>
>> Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
>> Soren Kierkegaard
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Grant Holland

Re: Oh my gawd...

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Abstract mathematicians are just making up stuff however they want. They are artists whose "clay" is (in the modern view) formal logic. The nature of their creation is its own reason for being. Abstract mathematics is not natural science, nor is it the province of natural scientists. If one of their creations happens to be analogical to physicists or anyone else, then so be it. "Analogy fit" is not the business of the abstract mathematicians. That's the whole beauty of the discipline.

To applied mathematicians the above is probably all wet. And physicists probably think that math is their invention and that physics is its justification.

But we don't care about that and just continue on our merry way of self-amusement.

Grant

On 12/10/11 7:55 PM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:

Shouldn't theorems be independent of arbitrary decisions regarding what is or is not a prime number? Otherwise I'll have to believe that mathematicians are just making up stuff.

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary

725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Oh my gawd...

In reply to this post by Greg Sonnenfeld

I've forgotten the message that spawned the thread, but I'll expose my incompetence in math to say that I was also thinking that 1 is prime. The informal definition that I remember says that a number is prime if it is an integer evenly divisible only by itself and 1. Well, 1 clearly is divisible by itself (1/1 = 1) and divisible by 1 (1/1 = 1), so by that informal definition, it must be prime. The perils of natural language and informal definitions.

;; Gary
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Grant Holland

Re: Oh my gawd...

In reply to this post by George Duncan-2

George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun!

Grant

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:

Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary

725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Epistemological Maunderings

On Primeness...

I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and presumably some attendant proofs as well).

That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime prime). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters and/or tourette's that would be set off by such a construct?

Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate because he is not a mathematician.   I'd say his definition is not useful because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa).   Numerology, on the other hand uses all three!

We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without knowing it or admitting to it.   I am pretty sure a number of people here would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while others are drawn to them (self included).

While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge itself?

That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize the futility of opening that bag of worms.

Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of statistical physics.

I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering!

Carry on!
- Steve

Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly agree on the definition.

My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, because I'm not a mathematician.

—R
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:
George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun!

Grant

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28505%29%20983-6895" value="+15059836895" target="_blank">(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary

725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Epistemological Maunderings

I think this is metaphysics, no?

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly agree on the definition.

My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, because I'm not a mathematician.

—R

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:

Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:
I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:
Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com
<a href="tel:%28505%29%20983-6895" target="_blank">(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary
725 Canyon Road
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: Epistemological Maunderings

Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology being the nature of knowledge. Whether emergence is Epistemological or if it is Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not an unsubtle one...

I think this is metaphysics, no?

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

On Primeness...

I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and presumably some attendant proofs as well).

That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime prime). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters and/or tourette's that would be set off by such a construct?

Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate because he is not a mathematician.   I'd say his definition is not useful because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa).   Numerology, on the other hand uses all three!

We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without knowing it or admitting to it.   I am pretty sure a number of people here would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while others are drawn to them (self included).

While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge itself?

That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize the futility of opening that bag of worms.

Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of statistical physics.

I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering!

Carry on!
- Steve

Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly agree on the definition.

My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, because I'm not a mathematician.

—R
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:
George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun!

Grant

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28505%29%20983-6895" target="_blank">(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary

725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Epistemological Maunderings

Just out of idle curiosity, what's the '...ysics' or '...ology' word for 'prefers to talk (incessantly) about it rather than doing it?'

Unless, of course, that is an unsuitable question. The question emerged, unbidden, you see...

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology being the nature of knowledge. Whether emergence is Epistemological or if it is Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not an unsubtle one...
I think this is metaphysics, no?

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

On Primeness...

I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and presumably some attendant proofs as well).

That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime prime). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters and/or tourette's that would be set off by such a construct?

Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate because he is not a mathematician.   I'd say his definition is not useful because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa).   Numerology, on the other hand uses all three!

We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without knowing it or admitting to it.   I am pretty sure a number of people here would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while others are drawn to them (self included).

While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge itself?

That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize the futility of opening that bag of worms.

Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of statistical physics.

I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering!

Carry on!
- Steve

Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly agree on the definition.

My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, because I'm not a mathematician.

—R
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:
George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun!

Grant

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

<a href="tel:%28505%29%20983-6895" target="_blank">(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary

725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================

Nick Thompson

Re: Epistemological Maunderings

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve,

I thought epistemology concerned how knowledge is possible. Thus, the question of what knowledge actually IS, would be metaphysical. Too lazy to look it up, so I am teasing you, instead.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:50 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

I think this is metaphysics, no?

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly agree on the definition.

My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, because I'm not a mathematician.

—R

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:

Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:
I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:
Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com
<a href="tel:%28505%29%20983-6895" target="_blank">(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary
725 Canyon Road
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Epistemological Maunderings

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Robert, I detect an insinuation of dissatisfaction from somewhere. There is a disturbance in the force. But, enough of this epistemological relativism, I deduce that there probably no need to classify the source: it suffices to simply know that it is there.

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

Oh god, the trolls are out, again. My last comment “… too lazy … etc.” was a major blunder and I am about to pay for it. I keep forgetting that I am not among friends.

I have in fact spent HOURS trying to figure out the difference between metaphysics and epistemology (and ontology), without success. It’s not like I haven’t read a lot of stuff and talked to a lot of people about it, it’s just that none of it ever sticks. I get the impression that epistemology is about the possibility of knowledge … how one would ever come by it, particularly given the fact that, on almost every philosopher’s account since Descartes, all we can know about is the contents of our own minds. Also, given that induction is impossible, and, every deductive inference requires some induction along the way to get the deduction “down to the ground.”

Anyway, it gives me so little pleasure to see Doug and Robert vying for Smug Cynic Award, that I will try very hard to stay away from these things. If you have any thoughts you would like me to comment on please do send them to me directly.

All the best,

Nick

‘.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:50 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings
Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology being the nature of knowledge.   Whether emergence is Epistemological or if it is Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not an unsubtle one...

I think this is metaphysics, no?

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

On Primeness...

I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and presumably some attendant proofs as well).

That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime prime). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters and/or tourette's that would be set off by such a construct?

Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate because he is not a mathematician.   I'd say his definition is not useful because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa).   Numerology, on the other hand uses all three!

We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without knowing it or admitting to it.   I am pretty sure a number of people here would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while others are drawn to them (self included).

While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge itself?

That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize the futility of opening that bag of worms.

Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of statistical physics.

I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering!

Carry on!
- Steve

Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly agree on the definition.

My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, because I'm not a mathematician.

—R
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:
George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun!

Grant

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

<a href="tel:%28505%29%20983-6895" target="_blank">(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary
725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell