Cornell 6 Clarkson 1

[Towerroad]

The number of goals score by our opponents in the first 4 games are:
7, 5, 3, 1.

After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.

However, they are all prime so be careful as there are other less appealing candidates.

[Trotsky]

Is 0 a prime?  I always forget.

[Towerroad]

No, a prime is divisible by 1 and itself. 0/0 is not legal although I am certain to ignite a math firestorm.

[Trotsky]

Is 0 even?  I always forget.

[jkahn]

The number of goals score by our opponents in the first 4 games are:
7, 5, 3, 1.

After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.

However, they are all prime so be careful as there are other less appealing candidates.

1 is not a prime.

[Towerroad]

Ooops.

[Jim Hyla]

I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?

[jtwcornell91]

The number of goals score by our opponents in the first 4 games are:
7, 5, 3, 1.

After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.

However, they are all prime so be careful as there are other less appealing candidates.

1 is not a prime.

Officially 0 and 1 are neither prime nor composite, even though 1 seems to fit the spirit of the definition of prime and 0 likewise "feels" composite.  I think this is because it makes the statement of various theorems about prime numbers simpler.

[Killer]

In the goalie manual, 0 is prime.

[Trotsky]

The number of goals score by our opponents in the first 4 games are:
7, 5, 3, 1.

After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.

However, they are all prime so be careful as there are other less appealing candidates.

1 is not a prime.

Officially 0 and 1 are neither prime nor composite, even though 1 seems to fit the spirit of the definition of prime and 0 likewise "feels" composite.  I think this is because it makes the statement of various theorems about prime numbers simpler.

This is a lot of things, but it isn't "simple." ::help::

[ursusminor]

I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?

The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic wouldn't hold if 1 were considered prime. That sounds like a good reason to me. :-)

[KeithK]

I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?

Because we're a bunch of geeks who have hijacked this thread?

[Towerroad]

Where else could we discuss prime number theory and hockey in the same place?

[Jim Hyla]

I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?

The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic wouldn't hold if 1 were considered prime. That sounds like a good reason to me. :-)

But I've never understood why that fails if 1 were considered prime. If 1 were prime, I suppose adding it to any calculation such as their example "6936 = 2³ x 3 x 17² x 1¹" just doesn't seem right? Also, if 1 were prime you'd not have to construct "other than prime" additions to the other theorems.

Anyway, you could just rewrite the theorem as "Any number can be written as a unique product of prime numbers other than 1. There probably is a place where it falls apart, I just don't know it.

[ursusminor]

I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?

The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic wouldn't hold if 1 were considered prime. That sounds like a good reason to me. :-)

But I've never understood why that fails if 1 were considered prime. If 1 were prime, I suppose adding it to any calculation such as their example "6936 = 2³ x 3 x 17² x 1¹" just doesn't seem right? Also, if 1 were prime you'd not have to construct "other than prime" additions to the other theorems.

Anyway, you could just rewrite the theorem as "Any number can be written as a unique product of prime numbers other than 1. There probably is a place where it falls apart, I just don't know it.

I probably used the wrong smiley. It would just require an additional phrase like the one you used "other than 1" there and in other places.