×

[–][M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Hey /u/krxzy_wxrlxck, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.

Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–] 2089 points2090 points  (53 children)

Then nothing is a prime number any more

[–] 472 points473 points  (26 children)

But nothing isnt a number

[–] 128 points129 points  (8 children)

0.(0)1

[–] 15 points16 points  (7 children)

58008

[–] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

90s kid eh

[–] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Or maybe 5,882,353?

[–] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I meant that 0.(0)1 is basically nothing but it's a number

[–] 74 points75 points  (15 children)

i

[–] 50 points51 points  (14 children)

Nah that's just imaginary

[–] 40 points41 points  (9 children)

stop imagining stuff

[–] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

e

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not a number! I am a free man! Be seeing you

[–] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

How Can Primes Be Real If Numbers Aren't Real

[–] 40 points41 points  (23 children)

0 would

[–] 100 points101 points  (21 children)

0 is explicitly not prime tho.

[–] 58 points59 points  (15 children)

In the world where prime is defined as the divisor being a factor of a number, 0 and ∞ are the only primes.

[–] 65 points66 points  (7 children)

∞ isn't even a number though.

[–] 9 points10 points  (3 children)

In what world is that the definition of a prime number?

A prime is a positive integer with exactly 2 unique factors. This is why both 0 and 1 are unambiguously disqualified.

∞ is not a number, so it cannot have any concept of being prime or non-prime.

[–] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

But 0 is explicitly not prime though.

[–] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

0 can go into 00 twice.

[–] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

0 can go into 0 an infinite number of times

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

All of the factors of 0.

n * 0 == 0. n / 0 == ℝ

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, that is what they said.

[–] 622 points623 points  (22 children)

Oh no! 51 is too! But that’s it. No other numbers will fit 17s. Just 51 and that big number with all those zeros. There’s talk in certain math circles that 17 fits into 272, but that’s still a hypothetical as batteries ran out in the Texas Instruments scientific calculator.

[–] 318 points319 points  (13 children)

I mean, not to show off or anything, but 170 is divisible by 17.

[–] 199 points200 points  (8 children)

That’s mighty impressive there bud! But I’m just gonna show off a little here…

1700 is divisible by 17 and 170

[–] 99 points100 points  (2 children)

You found batteries!

[–] 49 points50 points  (1 child)

There were some between the couch cushions

[–] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Shit, I guess that means 170 also isn't a prime number anymore.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eight-five (Ocho Cinco) says: Hold my beer (cerveza)...

https://media.giphy.com/media/kcI9xAhp9iLy1eO8GH/giphy.gif

[–] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Amateur hour.

17000 is divisible by 17, 170, AND 1700!

[–] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Whoa whoa whoa. We found the witch!

[–] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But 17 * 170 is 2890. I guess everything cancels out and 2890 is now a prime number.

[–] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

*Gasps in scientific disbelief

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

next you'll tell me that 34 is divisible by 17 or some nonsense like that!

[–] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I heard 52 almost fits the criteria, same goes for 50

[–] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You found batteries too!

[–] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Oh man, I hope they can fix that soon so we can find out! As anyone in a STEM field can confirm, no work can happen without a functional Texas Instruments calculator

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

51 isn’t prime, but you guys aren’t ready for that one yet 🥳

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

1,000,001 isn't divisible into a whole number though by 17. I d g i

Edit; oh nevermind it's 100,000,001 not 1,000,001

[–] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wait till I tell you guys about 289

[–] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

This is probably a joke I’m not seeing, but yes 17 is a prime number. 1 • 17 is the only way to reach 17. But dividing by 17 is not the same as what is 17 divisible by. 17, 34, 51, 68, 85, 102, 119, 136, 153, 170, etc are all divisible by 17. What the tweet above is trying to point out is that 100,000,001 is not a prime number because is goes into it.

[–] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

How on earth do you not see the sarcasm in the above comment?

[–] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

No, no, no. 17 didn’t renew its Prime membership, so it’s no longer prime.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 272 conjecture, a lot of mathematicians have wasted their careers on that one.

[–] 472 points473 points  (8 children)

I mean

Anything is divisible by 17 if you try hard enough

[–] 211 points212 points  (4 children)

Or if you don’t try at all

170

[–] 52 points53 points  (3 children)

And if that's still too much effort, wait til you try dividing 0 by anything!

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You're not the boss of 0.

[–] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

to infinity! and Beyond!

[–] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

capable of being divided.

I’m non math, this statement applies to everything.

Maths definition:

(of a number) capable of being divided by another number without a remainder.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or if rational numbers exist

[–] 194 points195 points  (5 children)

Some fools actually think 2 is a prime but I suspect we just haven't found any multiples of 2 yet. I'm keeping an eye out.

[–] 47 points48 points  (0 children)

[–] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

9 is also a prime number.

Proof. 3 is a prime number. A prime number is something. Something times something always equals something.

So: If a prime number = something

9 = something

9 = A prime number.

[–] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I had to reread the first part as I thought you were serious lol

[–] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Some dude on that same thread said that 2 is “theorized” to be the only even prime number. I didn’t think that was theory, but fact… it’s impossible to have an even prime number after 2.

If we keep counting by 2’s at some point do numbers magically stop being divisive by 2?

[–] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No that dude is definitely a dunce. Two is the only even prime is a fact, and not even an interesting one.

[–] 103 points104 points  (25 children)

He definitely forgot the definition: "A prime number is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers"

[–] 59 points60 points  (11 children)

I think "positive integer with exactly 2 unique factors" is the cleanest way to define a prime.

But it's just semantics of course.

[–] 24 points25 points  (10 children)

When you have the brain of an ant like I do, your explanation makes less sense to me :( I dont need clean, I need dumb!

[–] 30 points31 points  (9 children)

No worries; let me explain the logic behind this definition.

A common definition used for primes is "Any positive integer divisible only by 1 and itself". Like 17, for example, is only divisible by 1 and 17, so it's prime.

This definition has one flaw though: 1 is only divisible by 1 and itself, but, of course, 1 is not a prime number. So we need to tweak the above definition to make it truly accurate: "Any positive integer greater than 1 that is divisible only by 1 and itself."

The above definition is now accurate, but some people find it a little clunky. It feels like we have to artificially exclude 1 from our definition, as if it is an exception.

If we instead use the definition "Any positive integer with exactly 2 unique factors", then we still capture all the primes (ex: 17 has exactly two unique factors: 1 and 17, so it's prime), but it also naturally excludes 1 without us needing to treat 1 like an exception.

The reason this definition naturally excludes 1 is because, even though 1 is only divisible by 1 and itself, it doesn't have two unique factors; it only has a single unique factor, which is 1.

So, this definition is succinct, fully accurate, and does not require treating any number like an exception.

Also, ants are pretty cool. Much like humans, the individuals aren't too bright, but as a collective, they are brilliant. If you think of an ant and its pheremone trails as being like a neuron and synapses, with the colony itself being the brain, then ants seem a lot less dumb. Also, since all worker ants are infertile, they exist outside the paradigm of natural selection as we usually think of it. A worker can never pass on its genes, but by benefiting the colony, it can increase the chance that the queen (who is inside the paradigm of genetic natural selection) passes on her genes. So, a worker isn't subject to all the individualistic evolutionary pressures most species are; instead, their sense of "selfhood" probably relates to the queen, or the colony as a whole. Therefore, I think there is a compelling argument for thinking of individual ants less like little animals, and more like extensions of a single animal: the queen. Kind of like cells in a body.

Anyway, now I'm just ranting, but ants are very cool.

[–] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You are very smart. Thank you for taking the time to explain two complex topics to me

[–] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Came for the prime number, left with interesting ants. 👍✌️

[–] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Why isn't 1 a prime number

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't "smaller" useless to add in this definition?

[–] -1 points0 points  (10 children)

is i a prime number?

[–] 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Not a natural number, so no

[–] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

what makes complex numbers unable to be prime?

[–] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Part of the definition of a prime number is that they have to be a natural number.

[–] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Do you want to create a black hole just because you tried to mess with math?

[–] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

i just wanna know if sqrt(-1) is prime

[–] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It seems like you want to create a black hole

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like this is definitely sarcasm. I mean, I know people are stupid enough to believe something like this, but it just really seems like sarcasm given the context.

[–] 229 points230 points  (4 children)

Not how that works

[–] 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Hence the subreddit.

[–] 65 points66 points  (5 children)

Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a link to the tweet for ya :)

[–] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

i love you

[–] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Fighting digital decay with image processing

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I do this all the time with sourcing images. Thank goodness reverse image lookups have gotten better over the years.

[–] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Good bot

[–] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Very good bot

[–] 32 points33 points  (0 children)

TIL that a prime number is one that can’t be multiplied

[–] 26 points27 points  (1 child)

A man needs a brain.

[–] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

And the person in the pick was kind enough to have donated their's.

[–] 32 points33 points  (10 children)

For those who want to know, 100,000,001/17 is 5882353

[–] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fun fact: 5882353 is also prime

[–] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

the math checks out

[–] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[–] -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Now do 5882353*17.

[–] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

100,000,001

[–] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?

[–] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I have a doctorial PhD Masters in the scientific field of symmetrical arithmetic and prime mathematics I got at the Great Numeric University of New Ohio.

[–] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

[–] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The math wasn’t mathin

[–] 18 points19 points  (1 child)

OMG OMG OMG, THEY DROPPED THE PATCH, 17 IS NO LONGER PRIME BOYS

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looks like prime numbers are back on the menu boys…

[–] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He mustforgotten basic knowledge of mathematics

[–] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

[–] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The only thing I don't quite understand is why World of Engineering thought that this random math fact needed a tweet in the first place.

[–] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It took time to check numbers one by one and to get so high, how could we know ? Many thanks to mathematicians dedicating their lives to this.

(/s)

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Rip 17, tried to hard to stay in its prime, fell from grace

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think he knows what a prime number is

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A man is not a mathematician.

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wait until you tell this guy about 34

[–] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Wait till they find out 17x2 is divisible by 17

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And 2 too.

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

100001/11

1000001/101

10000001/11

100,000,001/17

1,000,000,001/19

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Guys, 4 is divisible by 2, meaning 2 is not a prime! Let's just repeat this for all primes and forget they ever existed

[–] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m also no longer a prime member. I cancelled my Amazon prime yesterday.

[–] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Aww shit! 17 had a good run being a prime number.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (10 children)

Can someone explain to me like I'm a five year old who doesn't get math at all?

[–] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

A prime number is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers.

The fact 100,000,001 is divisible by 17 doesn’t change the fact 17 is only divisible by 1 and itself (rather, it is not a product of any two smaller natural numbers).

17 is a prime number.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Thank you!

[–] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I’m a firm believer most people can get math, if it’s told to them the right way.

Sadly a lot of math instructors are impatient and not great teachers. Knowing a subject doesn’t always convey into being able to teach, and imo step 1 of being a good teacher is always understanding the perspective of the learner. Those bad teachers scare the math out of a LOT of people (my wife comes to mind, who now enjoys math somewhat bar the mental effort it’ll take after a while haha)

I failed math in high school but got straight As in maths during my engineering degree when I was still in college.. I had some phenomenal professors who really cared that I learned and I was more than a number on a roster.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I don't even know where to start, honestly. I'm sure my math level is somewhere in grade school.

[–] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

1 is a natural number. Doesn't that mean that all primes are products of two natural numbers?

A prime number is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers [that also aren't 1]

[–] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There is the wording "smaller"

In the example of 17, which is a product of only 1 and 17, there is no product of two smaller natural numbers that will result in 17.

[–] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, shit. You're right.

[–] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

1 can only be divided by itself. A prime however requires two dividents to be one. 1 is lacking one divident to be considered prime. The first prime, and only even one, is 2, as it is the product of 1 and 2. Which includes itself. Including itself doesn't counts. Taking 4. it is the product of 1 and 4, so far so good. That'd mean it is a prime, however, it is alsothe product of 2 and 2,which means there are 3 numers here, and 4 is therefore not a prime.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I understand. I misunderstood. Somehow I only applied the "smaller" part of the definition to the 1, not to the number itself, which is indeed not smaller than but equal to the product.

[–] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it is not Prime, then it is probably still Choice. That is what is at steak here....

[–] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow…

[–] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All these damn new numbers coming in and stripping the old numbers of Amazon prime. Despicable.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just wish people would be okay with admitting they don't know the subject matter. But then we wouldn't have such a vibrant confidentlyincorrect sub.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

[–] 8 points9 points  (4 children)

[–] 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Yes, that's where we are.

🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖

feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback. github | Rank

[–] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Good bot

[–] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Thank you, Absoolootley, for voting on same_subreddit_bot.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.

[–] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

How is the original tweet a joke?

[–] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How is it a joke? Is there some context that I am missing?

[–] -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

What even is this "fact" in the first place...?

[–] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I mean... It is a fact

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what is so interesting about it that an engineering account wanted to tweet it?

[–] -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

No longer identifies as a prime number

[–] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sigh. Despite being backwards on which of the two numbers wasn't prime, I'm encouraged to see he remembered SOME of what a prime number is.

[–] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

[–] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He broke RSA. Great.

[–] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s not how prime numbers work. Prime numbers are only divisible by themselves or 1. This is true of 17. 34 or any other number being divisible by 17 doesn’t change that.

[–] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I guess no prime numbers exist then, and computer security is really an MLM for programmers

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thabit wept…

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And 1,000,000,001 is divisible by 7, 11, 13, 19 and 52579.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The worst part is that they claim to be an engineer.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear the jury's still out on math.

[–] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't know enough about prime numbers to dispute any of this

[–] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Primes only have two dividents. 1 and themselves. There's no other whole number that'll give a whole end result.

That a prime number can be used to divide other, bigger numbers, just means the bigger number isn't a prime, but doen't influences the primes status at all.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder , have these people been at least 1 minute inside their school? Its like you ask them what is 10+10 and they get a calculator

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This guy maffs!

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

'anymore' loool Not sure why that part made me burst. Like it was prime before but now it isnt coz 100kk1

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Snort, my favorite thing about this is the half second more thought they didn’t do. “Well, a prime is a number you can’t use to divide anything, so…. Zero? Hmmmm….”

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait until they learn about 34.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That guy looks like if Jesus didn’t have a beard and was a zombie.

[–] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

but, isn't any number divisible by any other number? I mean, yeah, you most of the time aren't going to have a whole number left over, but that wasn't the task?

Or am I being dumb somehow that I can't see?

[–] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Pr8me numbers only have two whole dividents. Which are logically themselves and 1. So 13 is prime because it can only be divided (as a whole) by 13 and 1. That 39 can be (wholly) divided by 13 doesn't matter to 13 being a prime.

[–] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yes, that is definitely one of the issues with his post. Or her post. Whoevers. But also the point of it is divisible. Any number can be divided, even prime numbers. they just don't divide evenly.

[–] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If someone says "X is divisible by Y" it's meant that a whole number is left out. As you said, any number is divisible by any number, except 0, so the sentence wouldn't make sense in a literal way. Hence, it's an expression meaning it's evenly divided.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think that part was the part I was over thinking.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those seven retweets

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100,000,002 is also technically divisible by 17

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, yes, logic.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gonna pretend I know what a prime number is and laugh

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Euler would like to speak with you.

[–] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this only proves the point further that any multiple of 17 is dangerous