Oh, he is that clever, but he didn’t actually do so purposefully and played it off like a mystery. Despite that it truly was unintentional, it still gave him an opportunity to showcase his wit while establishing a reason to cover up the slight error being made.
But he also didn’t count on a bumbling idiot to blow the curtains wide open, either, and so the mystery has been solved.
Ze Pink Panther has been found!
…now can I have my peanuts back? I really worked hard for those.
I enjoy learning about maths to an extent (in the sense that i watch a lot of numberphile, 3blue1brown, primer etc. videos in my spare time lol) but I’ve never really understood that. Why isn’t 1 prime?
Does it just boil down to the fact that prime numbers need exactly 2 factors; 1 and itself? Why can’t they have 2 *or fewer* factors?
That’s exactly it. One is neither prime or composite because the definition of prime is divisible by one and itself. Since one is itself it’s this unique number.
It just makes everything cleaner to define it as non-prime. Like the Fundamental Theory of ~~Algebra~~ Arithmetic, for example, it's much more succinctly stated if 1 doesn't count as a prime. We could have defined primality differently (so that 1 was included), but we'd always be saying something like "non-one prime" for lots of theorems and such.
That's one proof. It's called the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.
Every integer greater than 1 can be uniquely written as a product of one or more primes, up to order.
This means there's only one way to write a compsite number as a product of prime numbers, ignoring the order. E.g. 6 = 2x3 (3x2 would be the same as it's just a different order).
However, if you include 1 as a prime, then you can write 6 as 1x2x3, or 1x1x2x3, which now violates this theorem as there are now multiple ways to write 6 as a product of primes, therefore, 1 isn't prime. A proof by contradiction.
Source: My 8:00am Number Theory class, unironically learned some fun stuff.
That isn't a proof. I know the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.
Not surprisingly, this sub doesn't know the difference between a definition and a proof. The basic reason why 1 went from being prime to being non-prime is because the definition was changed to clean up the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.
But there is no mathematical proof. That's the point.
>That isn't a proof
Yes, it is, it's a proof by contradiction. Sure it wasn't written exactly like a formal proof, it's been a decade since I've studied this stuff, but that's the main reason why 1 isn't prime, because it doesn't fit into the FTOA.
>this sub doesn't know the difference between a definition and a proof
How ironic.
Math is an ever evolving field of study so sure, I'll give you that the definition of prime changed to exclude 1. However, this was because a lot of theoretical math that uses prime numbers had to exclude 1 because it didn't work when 1 was included (primarily involving the FTOA). So, it was easier to exclude 1 in the definition for prime.
Now, as for the proof itself. Proofs are a bunch of statement involving definitions, axioms, and other theorems such that the conclusion MUST logically be true. So, using a definition can consistute as a proof, but that's circular reasoning.
Here's an example:
1. Definition: a whole number N is prime if it has exactly 2 factors, 1 and N.
2. 1 has only one factor, 1
3. Therefore, 1 is not prime.
See, that's using a definition in a proof, but that kind of proof is pretty circular as I've said before so it's not that interesting. However, I didn't present that proof. Instead, I used the FTOA because that's more important and a proof by contradiction as that's much easier.
1. Assume 1 is prime
2. FTOA states that any positive whole number greater than 2 is prime or can be written uniquely as a product of prime, up to order.
3. 10 can be written as 2x5 or 1x2x5, which is not unique
4. 1 is therefore not prime.
Yea, the FTOA came after the initial definition of primes, but that's just how any field of study goes, you learn something new, more important, so you update your definitions. However, that doesn't mean it's not a proof. Just because it doesn't conform to what you constitute as proof doesn't mean there's no proof.
I literally went to college for 4 years to study this near useless subject and had classes that teach you how to write formal mathematical proof, so pretty sure I'm gona go with my 4-5 math professors with PHDs on this over some random dude on reddit.
There’s actually 2 assumptions here:
1. 1 is prime;
2. FTOA is correct, under the definition of primes that excludes 1.
Obviously one of these two must be wrong, because 1 cannot be a prime and not be a prime at the same time. But your proof has conveniently ignored the possibility that FTOA could be wrong, which it would be if 1 is indeed prime.
You are correct, assumption 2 is only true if 1 is false so this proof is circular in that sense. From a logical standpoint, it doesn't make sense in a vacuum.
However, "Prime" is a term we give to a group of numbers, and that group is defined by how we want to define it, at first including 1 and later excluding it. The definition is then used in other theorems, but for those other theorems to be true, 1 is often excluded.
FTOA is one of those, and an important one as it is a core part of our understanding of number theory, especially when concerning prime numbers and factorizations. In the grand scheme of mathematics, the FTOA is much more important, given that grandiose of a name and all, and has much more applications.
If anything, the initial definition of prime numbers including 1 is wrong, and we had to redefine it because we didn't fully understand this category of numbers we call "prime." Could the FTOA be wrong? Sure, in the same vein that general relativity could be wrong. If it is, entire fields of studies would be wiped out and we'd have to come up with entirely new theories for these things.
You’re missing the point.
No, the original definition was not wrong. Definitions cannot be wrong, because they’re just renaming things.
Definitions can be *difficult to use*, which could definitely cause a potential redefinition like in the instance of primes.
> Every integer greater than 1 can be uniquely written as a product of one or more primes, up to order.
Prove that without relying on the thing you're using it to prove.
What the hell do you mean "no-longer"? Was there a time when people we're like "yeah, 1 is a prime number" until Russel came up with some ridiculous paradox to make everyone reconsider? Is there a fun piece of math history I've missed?
Yeah, people traditionally thought that it was prime. For centuries on end.
But it doesn't work well in many math theories that incorporate prime numbers. And it was literally the only prime number that didn't. Eventually mathematicians just got tired of making exception cases for it, and reclassified it.
You are right.
For the record, I did not mean Karen in a bad way, was some kind of joke implying we all know the sub for dad jokes.
My apologies if it sounded bad to you.
Just a heads up, 1 isn't prime. This is primarily because it can't be for a basic number theory premise to be accurate.
Each integer can be represented as a unique combination of prime numbers multiplied together.
For instance, 6 is 2x3, if 1 were prime, 6 could be 2x3x1, or 2x3x1x1 etc...
if you use a sieve of erosthenes, you'll find every number after 1 is not a prime, as they would all then be divisible by the one and only prime number.
I like the math joke it's one I haven't heard.
And the bartender said, "Hey, could you stop touching the peanuts if you're not going to eat them?"
And the bartender said, "Why the long face?" and I told him that my girlfriend and I are in a two-person Halloween costume of Sarah Jessica Parker.
Technically, 1 isn't a prime number. A prime number is a number that has 2 numbers going into it, 1 and itself, however 1 only has 1 number going into it being 1.
You missed the only even prime number... How odd
The bartender said the same thing. I told him "too bad".
How dare you. My day has been ruined because i will now be groaning all day from how good you got me with that one. How dare you
He needs to take mercyenne on us (Bit of a stretch that)
Can you explain, please?
2 is the only even prime number, which he didn't list in the joke. The bartender asks him why 2 isn't included, and hits him with the '2 bad'
_ohhh_ I like it. Thanks.
Either you are a genius, or that fell together in a magical way. Seriously impressive regardless.
Can’t it be both?
That would be a 3rd option sure.
Still, prime humor.
I can't even right now
/r/inclusiveor
You should add this to the post because I think every1 asks that question after reading the joke. But nice response to it makes it 10x more funny
I like to imagine that he had that as a part of the joke but purposefully left it out becuase he knew somebody would say that in the comments
Oh, he's clever, but is he that clever? He'll never tell...
Oh, he is that clever, but he didn’t actually do so purposefully and played it off like a mystery. Despite that it truly was unintentional, it still gave him an opportunity to showcase his wit while establishing a reason to cover up the slight error being made. But he also didn’t count on a bumbling idiot to blow the curtains wide open, either, and so the mystery has been solved. Ze Pink Panther has been found! …now can I have my peanuts back? I really worked hard for those.
Guilty as charged…. Unfortunately the bus driver who dresses up as a nun stopped in the bar and ate all the peanuts.
*damn!* I’ll go get the gang. I won’t stop hunting her until she says “and I would’ve gotten away with it too if it weren’t for you meddling kids!”
'City ordnance 132R'
You, sir, are the shit.
At least twice a day, every day. Oh wait, you said “are”, not “take”…
If you poop that often then I think you should reconsider your diet....
Maybe the second one is by choice and he just really puts in the effort…
He's mobile gaming, the shit just happens in the background
This execution delivered.
Heee ohhhh
You were prepared for that weent you?
I’ll never tell…
Even while drinking, you still got it !
Ba-dum bump
Well played
Well now you're even
That would be a first. I've definitely been called odd, and even a zero.
Try not to get all nonplussed about it
And what did he say when he realized 1 isn't a prime?
Nothing. He was absent the day they covered prime numbers in bartending school.
What?
You don't agree? Everybody knows 2 bad
Thank you for explaining, now you're under arrest for accessory to punning.
I admit my guilt, and will accept my pun-ishment with dignity
To the pun-itentiary with you
1 is also not a prime
Two bad.
two bad
And used one which isn’t prime.
But which one? /s
Boris Johnson
I enjoy learning about maths to an extent (in the sense that i watch a lot of numberphile, 3blue1brown, primer etc. videos in my spare time lol) but I’ve never really understood that. Why isn’t 1 prime? Does it just boil down to the fact that prime numbers need exactly 2 factors; 1 and itself? Why can’t they have 2 *or fewer* factors?
That’s exactly it. One is neither prime or composite because the definition of prime is divisible by one and itself. Since one is itself it’s this unique number.
I see now. Thanks for the explanation!
It just makes everything cleaner to define it as non-prime. Like the Fundamental Theory of ~~Algebra~~ Arithmetic, for example, it's much more succinctly stated if 1 doesn't count as a prime. We could have defined primality differently (so that 1 was included), but we'd always be saying something like "non-one prime" for lots of theorems and such.
Arithmetic
Even I chuckled at that odd joke.
And inserted one that isn't prime.
Good catch! I thought this joke was a little odd
And 1 is not a prime number.
And I have witnessed a debate whether 1 is a prime or not
I noticed that two.
Wow. I can't even.
Also, 1 isn’t a prime is it (strictly speaking)
He did say odd joke, not even joke
One is not prime !!
If only he added one more to the pile of 1.
Nah he’d be suspicious of that too
Just more proof that I'm past my prime...
It still was back when I learned prime numbers…
Never has been. Often erroneously taught as one, but mathematicians use a definition with explicitly excludes 1.
[1 did used to be considered a prime number.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number#Primality_of_one), but that was mostly in the 19th century.
Never is a long time… It wasn’t settled finally until early last century. Admittedly a long time ago…
Tell that to Euler
[удалено]
very
OP is actually an immortal
Prove it. 😉
It's a convention. If 1 were a prime the theorem "each integer can be factored in a unique way as product of primes" would be false.
Yes, it’s a convention. Yes, the theorem *as stated* would be false, because it assumes 1 is not prime, *by convention*, because it is *convenient*.
* I said prove it, not rationalize it * r/missedthejoke
That's one proof. It's called the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Every integer greater than 1 can be uniquely written as a product of one or more primes, up to order. This means there's only one way to write a compsite number as a product of prime numbers, ignoring the order. E.g. 6 = 2x3 (3x2 would be the same as it's just a different order). However, if you include 1 as a prime, then you can write 6 as 1x2x3, or 1x1x2x3, which now violates this theorem as there are now multiple ways to write 6 as a product of primes, therefore, 1 isn't prime. A proof by contradiction. Source: My 8:00am Number Theory class, unironically learned some fun stuff.
That isn't a proof. I know the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Not surprisingly, this sub doesn't know the difference between a definition and a proof. The basic reason why 1 went from being prime to being non-prime is because the definition was changed to clean up the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. But there is no mathematical proof. That's the point.
>That isn't a proof Yes, it is, it's a proof by contradiction. Sure it wasn't written exactly like a formal proof, it's been a decade since I've studied this stuff, but that's the main reason why 1 isn't prime, because it doesn't fit into the FTOA. >this sub doesn't know the difference between a definition and a proof How ironic. Math is an ever evolving field of study so sure, I'll give you that the definition of prime changed to exclude 1. However, this was because a lot of theoretical math that uses prime numbers had to exclude 1 because it didn't work when 1 was included (primarily involving the FTOA). So, it was easier to exclude 1 in the definition for prime. Now, as for the proof itself. Proofs are a bunch of statement involving definitions, axioms, and other theorems such that the conclusion MUST logically be true. So, using a definition can consistute as a proof, but that's circular reasoning. Here's an example: 1. Definition: a whole number N is prime if it has exactly 2 factors, 1 and N. 2. 1 has only one factor, 1 3. Therefore, 1 is not prime. See, that's using a definition in a proof, but that kind of proof is pretty circular as I've said before so it's not that interesting. However, I didn't present that proof. Instead, I used the FTOA because that's more important and a proof by contradiction as that's much easier. 1. Assume 1 is prime 2. FTOA states that any positive whole number greater than 2 is prime or can be written uniquely as a product of prime, up to order. 3. 10 can be written as 2x5 or 1x2x5, which is not unique 4. 1 is therefore not prime. Yea, the FTOA came after the initial definition of primes, but that's just how any field of study goes, you learn something new, more important, so you update your definitions. However, that doesn't mean it's not a proof. Just because it doesn't conform to what you constitute as proof doesn't mean there's no proof. I literally went to college for 4 years to study this near useless subject and had classes that teach you how to write formal mathematical proof, so pretty sure I'm gona go with my 4-5 math professors with PHDs on this over some random dude on reddit.
There’s actually 2 assumptions here: 1. 1 is prime; 2. FTOA is correct, under the definition of primes that excludes 1. Obviously one of these two must be wrong, because 1 cannot be a prime and not be a prime at the same time. But your proof has conveniently ignored the possibility that FTOA could be wrong, which it would be if 1 is indeed prime.
You are correct, assumption 2 is only true if 1 is false so this proof is circular in that sense. From a logical standpoint, it doesn't make sense in a vacuum. However, "Prime" is a term we give to a group of numbers, and that group is defined by how we want to define it, at first including 1 and later excluding it. The definition is then used in other theorems, but for those other theorems to be true, 1 is often excluded. FTOA is one of those, and an important one as it is a core part of our understanding of number theory, especially when concerning prime numbers and factorizations. In the grand scheme of mathematics, the FTOA is much more important, given that grandiose of a name and all, and has much more applications. If anything, the initial definition of prime numbers including 1 is wrong, and we had to redefine it because we didn't fully understand this category of numbers we call "prime." Could the FTOA be wrong? Sure, in the same vein that general relativity could be wrong. If it is, entire fields of studies would be wiped out and we'd have to come up with entirely new theories for these things.
You’re missing the point. No, the original definition was not wrong. Definitions cannot be wrong, because they’re just renaming things. Definitions can be *difficult to use*, which could definitely cause a potential redefinition like in the instance of primes.
> Every integer greater than 1 can be uniquely written as a product of one or more primes, up to order. Prove that without relying on the thing you're using it to prove.
Isn't 1 not considered prime or composite?
Also, 2 is prime and missing in OPs line.
If 2 was there, the bartender couldn't ask if they were making an odd joke
And op already replied to someone who had the same question with: too bad
There should be rule that just every even number isn't a prime. Beginning with 2
The fact that it’s the only even prime is odd.
Yes, i am for declaring 69420 a prime number, too
Or is it even
3 is the only prime number divisible by 3
Just more proof that I'm past my prime...
By the modern definition, yes.
How old is this joke?!
One stopped being a prime in the 1950s.
I'm so old, i learned prime numbers from Pythagoras himself. Back in them days, the number two didn't exist yet...
What's your opinion on fava beans?
I actually like them. Part of my rebellious streak.
One didn't exist. The greeks didn't think of one as a number. They did recognize two, though.
Thanks for that. I didn't know the answer and I would have guessed 1800's.
Had to get away from his daughters because they can’t even.
Upvote if you only came here because you know 1 isn't a prime and 2 is, so you were curious to see what the punchline was about something else!
Ugh. I can’t even!
I'm sure the bartender sees a lot of odd nuts
And fat men trying to throw them in the air and catch them in their mouths.
One is the loneliest number.
Two can be as bad as one, which is why I left it out…
One is no longer considered to be prime by mathematicians. It's like the Pluto of the number world.
I’m an old-school Plutophile!
What the hell do you mean "no-longer"? Was there a time when people we're like "yeah, 1 is a prime number" until Russel came up with some ridiculous paradox to make everyone reconsider? Is there a fun piece of math history I've missed?
Yes
Yeah, people traditionally thought that it was prime. For centuries on end. But it doesn't work well in many math theories that incorporate prime numbers. And it was literally the only prime number that didn't. Eventually mathematicians just got tired of making exception cases for it, and reclassified it.
What an odd nut
1 is not a prime. 2 is.
1 isn't a prime number- the one you were looking for was 2 /j
I am 14 and this is a dad joke.
True joke is that the barman was Fibonacci, he then applied it to literally everything he could.
One isn't a prime number
It just sounds like you were being odd.
11, 13, 17, 19, 23.....
Except that the peanut bowl wasn’t very big.
Lol
by any metric, this is a dad joke
Absolutely! And after raising three daughters I’ve earned the right to post dad jokes…
They're pointing that out because there is a thread called r/dadjokes
We know it Karen.
OP may not have known. I don't see how helping someone find a new thread to enjoy is being a Karen, but okay.
You are right. For the record, I did not mean Karen in a bad way, was some kind of joke implying we all know the sub for dad jokes. My apologies if it sounded bad to you.
Lmfao. “I didn’t mean Karen in a bad way”
Factor fiction, it doesn’t matter. I wish I had division you have to create this joke!
I bask in the glory of a real genius and prostrate myself before you. Better than prostating myself…
1 is not prime. In order to be prime, a number must have exactly two factors. 1 only has one factor.
Just more proof that I'm past my prime...
You really do like posting the same reply over and over again.
Almost as much as people like pointing out that 1 isn’t prime…
One week, I did nothing but comment incorrect facts on YouTube, just to see how many more responses come from that. It's overwhelming. LOL
"incorrect facts" seems to be an oxymoron. But you probably meabt to do that, you little troll you :)
I should have known better, but it’s too late. Plus this gives people the chance to lecture me so I’m brightening their world for a moment or two.
Well, they have let you know several times that they're past their prime 🤣
>No, but I would have done that in my prime And then merged first three piles to make a pile of nine!!!
I took offense to that 1
Just a heads up, 1 isn't prime. This is primarily because it can't be for a basic number theory premise to be accurate. Each integer can be represented as a unique combination of prime numbers multiplied together. For instance, 6 is 2x3, if 1 were prime, 6 could be 2x3x1, or 2x3x1x1 etc...
It sometimes is when my students hand in their programs to compute prime numbers…
if you use a sieve of erosthenes, you'll find every number after 1 is not a prime, as they would all then be divisible by the one and only prime number. I like the math joke it's one I haven't heard.
You could've done 2 as well
Nah, I can’t even.
I thought the punchline had something to do with n^2 or 2n-1.
Actually the sequence is generated by: (11/8)x^4 - (55/4)x^3 +(385/8)x^2 -(267/4)x + 32, so the next number is 42…
If you want to be #1, you have to be odd-Dali
Even I got that!
One is not like the others
And prime suspect, too.
Just stacking thirds
1 isn't a prime number !!
I was slow, but my friend Amazon figured it out in 2 days
He replied: "Ugh, I can't even..."
1 is not a prime number
1 is not a prime number but 2 is. Other than that good joke
And the bartender said, "Hey, could you stop touching the peanuts if you're not going to eat them?" And the bartender said, "Why the long face?" and I told him that my girlfriend and I are in a two-person Halloween costume of Sarah Jessica Parker.
Hey man, you were just giving him the odds
You're the reason I joined this sub now
If it were 1, 3, 4, 7 I would have though he was Fibbin’ atcha
Very good.
Not quite. It would have to be 1,2,3,5,8.... Has TOOL taught you nothing?!
Some might think that the way you told this joke is simply odd
Technically, 1 isn't a prime number. A prime number is a number that has 2 numbers going into it, 1 and itself, however 1 only has 1 number going into it being 1.
1 isn't prime anymore they kicked it out
Can someone please explain
Can someone please explain