Re:The Connection That Changed Number Theory
by tgv on Sunday November 05, 2023 @06:34AM
(#38150224)
The exclusion of negative numbers is not arbitrary. Depending on your exact definition, you would be left with the current prime numbers, these plus their negatives, or none at all (since 2 is divisible by -2).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Connection That Changed Number Theory
by contravariant on Sunday November 05, 2023 @10:05AM
(#38151727)
The notion of 'negative' doesn't transfer too well to other rings. It vaguely makes sense to only look at the natural numbers (excluding 0), primality predates negative numbers as a concept after all, but from the point of view of the more general definition it is mostly arbitrary.
Re:The Connection That Changed Number Theory
by gizmo686 on Sunday November 05, 2023 @10:13AM
(#38151791)
Primality is defined for any ring (although some rings have no primes). If you are asking about prime integers, then negative primes are themselves prime. Most of what you know of primality still holds if you add 'up to unit multiples' to all of your theroums.