Wouter van Ooijen escribi=F3:
> It either is or it isn't *depending on your definition of prime*.
> Without a fixed definition there is nothing to argue about.
>
> Note that the definition on the page you refer to: "An integer greater
> than one is called a prime number if its only positive divisors
> (factors) are one and itself."
>
> Does *not* state whether one is prime or not!
>
>   =

Yep, I can see. As being pointed out by others (and you), the assumption =

(1 as a prime number) needs a context. The thing is that looks like in =

modern math the general consensus tend to take out 1 of the prime number =

series.

Regards,

*Carlos Marcano*
-Guri, Venezuela-
-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist