The Connection That Changed Number Theory

Re:The Connection That Changed Number Theory by bmacho on Sunday November 05, 2023 @01:29PM (#38154007)

Yeah, I don't buy this argument. Or anything similar for analogue questions. They obviously have zero proving strength. Especially if it is only 1 example.

To the question "why professionals use the tool they use instead of a slightly different version of that tool", the answer is either:

  - they like it, or
  - they don't like it, but they still use it, say for historic reasons

Now you can list various examples to illustrate your point why would they prefer the tool as it is, instead of a hypothetical, slightly different version of said tool. But you can't just point at 1 example and say that this is the reason. That is just a wrong answer. Logically wrong. Lying. Annoying and hurting the readers head. Don't do that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Connection That Changed Number Theory by bonzini on Sunday November 05, 2023 @02:24PM (#38154645)

Ok, then the answer is "they do use a slightly different version of the tool than what you learnt at school. That version is more rigorous (which is why they like it) and in that version 1 is neither a prime nor a composite. In the version you learnt at school you're told that 1 is not a prime and you can't really say that it's composite either, but no clear explanation of why it is not a prime; in the version that mathematicians use there's a name for what 1 is, and a rule to find things like it in other number systems."

[ Parent | on HN ]