/sci/ - Science & Math

what does it mean to "ignore multiplication"
and why does this deserve its own thread

>>15124926
>why does this deserve its own thread
There's no answer for or against that.
But for ignoring multiplication or dividing, how would the title prime be attributed to a number without paying attention to how its broken down or partitioned.

>>15124912
Kill yourself idiot

>>15124932
>But for ignoring multiplication or dividing, how would the title prime be attributed to a number without paying attention to how its broken down or partitioned.
wat

>>15124941
Why are prime numbers called prime numbers. How can one explain that without bringing in or referencing division or multiplication?

>>15124912
>tell me what is 2+2 but do not say 4.

>>15124954
Using only addition, can a prime be defined?
>>15124955
(1+1)+(1+1)
2 pairs of 1's summed.

>>15124963
2+2 = a pair of a pair of 1's summed.

>>15124912
I guess you would say that primes can only be represented as an area of integer-sided rectangles if one of the sides has a length of one.
But that's a bit wordy and is just a roundabout way to reference multiplication

>>15124971
That works

>>15124912
>ignoring linguistics, phonemes, meaning and writing what makes a word?

Retarded.

>>15124981
A sequence or chain of larynx flexes triggered by a variation in an invariance.

>>15124981
An enumeration of endocrine signatures activated by a cascade of polymers.

>>15124955
2+2 is 3+1 or 6-2 or 8/2. Boom, get fucked. Preferably in the ass so it will hurt and you will volatiled.

>>15125004
you just said 4 in 3 different ways

>>15125005
I didn't say 4. I said 3+1 is the answer to 2+2. No where in my answer did I say 4.

>>15124989
>A sequence or chain of larynx flexes

Phoneme.

>>15124992
>An enumeration of endocrine signatures activated by a cascade of polymers.

Are you suggesting your post as no meaning or writing?

>>15125010
3+1 = s(3) = 4

Ignoring not having a factor divisible by 2, what makes a number odd?

>>15125030
Hey stupid
3 =/= 4
1 =/= 4
2 =/= 4
But
3-2=1
1-2=-1
1-1=0
So
3-1 ([2+1]+[2-1]) = 2+2
Do you understand now?

>>15125034
you can't divide it evenly amongst you and your imaginary friend.

>>15125044
>3-1 ([2+1]+[2-1])
that is equal to -1, dumb fuck

>>15125053
>2+1 = 3
>2-1 = 1
>some how through magic -1 appears
Stay in school anon.

>>15125059
>Stay in school anon.
I wish I was still in school, anon. Back then life was easy.

>>15125011
If it has no meaning to you, does it have meaning beyond myself?

>>15125134
It clearly has meaning to me, as I was able to parse it and point out its flaw with a question.

>>15125461
The meaning it has to you may not match the meaning it has to me. In both cases, what is extrapolated depends on assumptions made by the individual. Writing and words to me are semaphores or secret handshakes,equatable to locks and keys.

>>15124912
>Ignoring multiplication
Why would you ignore multiplication? What's arbitrary about multiplication? The whole point of breaking down a number into prime factors is that you can do so uniquely for any given number.

>>15125550
It looks like addition by a narrower selection of iterations. And are they unique if all numbers can represented as a chain of 1's?

>>15125564
I don't understand what drives people like you. It genuinely looks like you're just going out of your way to be as retarded as possible, but I don't think you're even trolling. You actually think you're presenting some gotcha.

>>15125579
The difference between a genius and retard is who follows.

>>15125584
You don't have to be a genius to follow this post, anon: >>15125550

>>15124926
don't chimp out like a baby about a math thread on the math board.

>>15125589
This is not a real math thread. This is a "my tard wrangler let me go on the internet" thread.

>>15125586
The point of ignoring multiplication was that it looks like a red herring when it comes to primes. If primes are contingent on being the points iterative cycles of composites don't hit or loop at and they're composites of 1's, what importance do they have in addition?

>>15125594
>it looks like a red herring when it comes to primes.
No, the two are actually tied together by definition.

> If primes are contingent on being the points iterative cycles of composites don't hit or loop at and they're composites of 1's
Schizo word salad.

>what importance do they have in addition?
None. Why should they have importance in addition?

>>15125598
>No, the two are actually tied together by definition.
Is multiplication a subset of addition?

>Schizo word salad.
Every 2 succession of 2 you get an even number or composite of 2. Every 3 succession of 3 you get a composite of 3. 5 and so on. Before those, no composite lands on or touches the, the decrease in prime prevalence/presence a consequence.

>None. Why should they have importance in addition?
Depends on your answer to the 1st question.

>>15125591
>hurrrr durrr i am awesome because i know about math
is as dumb and gay as
>hurrrr durrr i am awesome because i can catch the football
stop being so pretentious, you're making the board cringe.

>>15125602
>Is multiplication a subset of addition?
More schizo word salad.

>>15125604
Is multiplication advanced addition?

>>15125603
>you're making me and my heckin' buddies cringe
>r-right, guise?
Back to the up arrow forum.

>>15125606
Maybe if you're in primary school. Which would explain your thread and your awful attempts to sound "mathematical" without actually knowing any relevant terminology.

>>15125610
Enlighten me. How is multiplication not addition? Please don't say the idempotent is 0 and not 1.

>>15125615
The absolute state... How is multiplication addition?

>>15125622
With the exception of 0, all potential operations look to be a condensed version of addition, restricted by equal partitioning unless you allow for fractions.

>>15125628
>look to be
>unless you allow for fractions
This is not math. This is midwit babble. Define for me multiplication in terms of addition.
>inb4 your definition only works if we're counting apples

>>15124912
Only divisible by 1. That's the definition. Is it incorrect?

>>15125635
3 = 1+1+1 = 1*3
4 = 1+1+1+1 = 1*4 = (1+1)+(1+1) = 2+2 = 2*2

>>15125635
0/ = 1*0, 2*0, 3*0,...
1+0 = 1*1
2+0 = 2*1

>>15125639
That's not a definition. Anon, what's your educational background? Not so I could mock you, just so I would know what terms to talk to you to, since you don't seem to know what a definition is and we're going in circles.

>>15125642
Got through pre-calculus. Art history major.

>>15125642
Going back and re-examining what was learned from American public education.

>>15124912
>ignoring multiplication
Missed that. If you do that then prime numbers can't be determined, but they still exist.

>>15125643
>>15125644
Ok. You know what, just show me what the product of -pi by -e looks like in terms of repeated addition.

>>15125648
>If you do that then prime numbers can't be determined
You could still just work an ad hoc definition of multiplication into your definition of prime numbers. Ignoring concepts doesn't make them go away.

>>15125642
The definition of a prime number is that it is not divisible. Meaning if you remove multiplication the definition would not be complete.
But the existence of prime numbers is not dependent on whether or not they can be observed

>>15125657
Don't know what you're on about. My point was that multiplication stands on its own. It isn't just some secondary thing that drives from addition. It's fundamental to arithmetic, so expressing a number in terms of multiplications is a fundamental thing.

>>15125655
Does it have to be negative?

>>15125656
How do you determine a prime number without the use of multiplication?
>>15125663
Correct, so if you go by the hypothetical in OP where you ignore multiplication there is no way to determine a prime number

>>15125672
>infinite series
Yeah, that's nice, now multiply.

>>15125677

>>15125678
You seem to be suffering from some kind of serious mental retardation.

>>15125682
Is this more what your looking for?

>>15125688
Dull bait.

>>15125622
m * n is the sum of m from 1 to n.

>>15126190
Now do (-e)*(-pi).

>>15125635
>Define for me multiplication in terms of addition

For every m in the natural numbers, let f_m: N -> N be the function defined by f_m(p) = p + m. Then, by definition, m * (n + 1) = (f_m)^n(m), where (f_m)^n is f_m composed with itself n times.

>>15126201
>For every m in the natural numbers
Try again.

>>15126203
Only the multiplication of natural numbers is relevant in this context.

>>15126215
Tedious retard.

>>15124912
There's no magic woo essence that makes a number be prime, a prime number is a number that is only divisible by 1 and itself. Cheers nigger. /thread

>>15124912
Enjoy

>>15125594
>red herring
OK, lets see anon's alternative axiom to the associative property from which multiplication can be derived

>>15126260
Not really efficient now is it?

>>15126270
Like that no. But if formulas can be represented in an infinite number of ways like values, wouldn't there be a more efficient formula?

>>15126270
>works to ∞+1 and beyond
its not about efficiency, its about rigor

>>15126270
>>15126284
That formula is just the most retard-tier prime listing algorithm condensed into a single expression.

>>15126293
does not stop it from working faggot

>>15126293
Wow, so it fits OP like a glove!

>>15125543
>Writing and words to me are semaphores or secret handshakes,equatable to locks and keys.

But what of master locks and master keys?

>>15126341
It tells you nothing about what makes a number prime.

>>15126375
Probably the most versatile words or signals. Fuck, Fire. Maybe the oldest words are like that.

Okay,
What makes a number prime is that it isn't composite.
What makes a number composite is the fact that it has a nontrivial factor.
You can start with a number between 1 and it, the factor, and keep adding the factor to an accumulator that initially starts at zero, producing the multiples of the factor, one of which is the composite number.
There.
Primes with absolutely no reference to multiplication.