5

Subject: 5
From: GUEST,6
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:47 AM

Come in number 5, your time is up !!!

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,6
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:49 AM

Today's Mudcat is brought to you by the number 6.

Subject: RE: 5
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:52 AM

Number 6 is un-mutual (but not the existing member number 6)

Subject: RE: 5
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:58 AM

BS?

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,7
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:58 AM

7 is the lucky number.

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,8 & 9
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:20 AM

8 for a wish: 9 for a kiss..

Subject: RE: 5
From: John P
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:24 AM

My five favorite fives:

V
pentacle
quitting time at work
Bonny Lass of Five-e-o
padushka

Subject: RE: 5
From: Johnny J
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:32 AM

How about

Georg(ina), Anne, Dick, Julian, and Timmy the dog?

Not on my Aunt Fanny, I hear you say?

Subject: RE: 5
From: theleveller
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:42 AM

Five for silver

Subject: RE: 5
From: number 6
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:48 AM

Guest,6 ..... I'd like to inform you that I am the real, and the only number 6 .... you Guest,6 are a complete fraud .... so scram, beat it,or more bluntly get the hell out of here.

biLL .... the real number 6

Subject: RE: 5
From: number 6
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:52 AM

Yes Richard .... this fraudulent Guest,6 is unmutual .... I have a suspicion number 2 is setting me up for something here in the Madcat.

biLL

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,-6
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:52 AM

Ok, forgive a poor number a simple mistake.
Not a deliberate attempt at identity misappropriation.

Compromise, from now on while this thread remains bizarrely active,

I will from now on be known as -6

Subject: RE: 5
From: Singing Referee
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 10:50 AM

Number 5 is alive!

Subject: RE: 5
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 11:39 AM

... and well and living in the Pentagon

Subject: RE: 5
From: theleveller
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 11:45 AM

The five deadly sins.

Subject: RE: 5
From: number 6
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 11:50 AM

Guest,-6 .... minus 6 ..... ok, fine by me.

biLL

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,-6
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 11:52 AM

"Five" featuring Brian May

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dBpbW5kS-w

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,-6
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 11:53 AM

"Five" featuring Brian May

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dBpbW5kS-w

Subject: RE: 5
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 11:54 AM

Do not disassemble number 5

Subject: RE: 5
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 12:18 PM

42

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 5
From: gnu
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 12:27 PM

2-4

hic

Subject: RE: 5
From: Becca72
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 12:46 PM

Just followed the You Tube link from Guest -6....oh the horrors!! That was painful!

MUCH better Brian May choice...

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 12:55 PM

I love prime numbers ... its the math thing I guess

Subject: RE: 5
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM

I love Goldbach's Conjecture of 1742 ~~ every even number is expressible as THE SUM OF TWO PRIMES.

Subject: RE: 5
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 01:39 PM

I hope and pray that number 6 and -6 never meet or they'll both vanish.

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 01:44 PM

That's why I do my shopping at the 7-11 service mart :-)

Subject: RE: 5
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 01:58 PM

My old boss used to say, when looking at spreadsheets "I hope there aren't any sevens in it, I hate sevens". Naturally we all made sure there were loads of them.

Subject: RE: 5
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 02:23 PM

6 and 9 can be fun, if persued together.

Subject: RE: 5
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 02:47 PM

There's three of me - 666 - mwaaahaaaaah!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 02:53 PM

we are all still in our prime regardless of what our doc says

Subject: RE: 5
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 05:57 PM

Never been much into five even (no pun intended) thou I do tend to be an odd numbers kinda guy... I think it's because 5 is one half of 10 and 10 is boring...

Just my opinon...

B~

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 06:55 PM

Prime time for Dan.

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541, 547, 557, 563, 569, 571, 577, 587, 593, 599, 601, 607, 613, 617, 619, 631, 641, 643, 647, 653, 659, 661, 673, 677, 683, 691, 701, 709, 719, 727, 733, 739, 743, 751, 757, 761, 769, 773, 787, 797, 809, 811, 821, 823, 827, 829, 839, 853, 857, 859, 863, 877, 881, 883, 887, 907, 911, 919, 929, 937, 941, 947, 953, 967, 971, 977, 983, 991, 997

Subject: RE: 5
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 07:19 PM

k-1 -

Gross discrimination!!!!

1 is also a prime.

You are hereby awarded a unitary digit for your crass omission.

John

Subject: RE: 5
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 07:27 PM

And why not
2 and 2/3?

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,998 1/2
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 11:17 PM

Feeling a bit low at the moment.

Primes are described as being numbers evenly divisible only by one and themselves, and because one IS itself, it falls outside the definition.

Subject: RE: 5
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 11:53 PM

But since one is itself one, one can be divided by itself, and comes out even as one, with no remainder, and one can also be divided by one and comes out, like all the others, with itself as the answer and with no remainder, so it fits perfectly within the definition.

It just depends on whether you apply a completeness test to the definition, or if you're prejudiced and decide to exclude "some kinds" of numbers. Some have also tried to say that 0! isn't a real number, but that's just another similar case in point.

John

Subject: RE: 5
From: Dead Horse
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:36 AM

And for my next number .......

Subject: RE: 5
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 04:20 AM

We'd better ask Cameron, hadn't we? He is the Prime minister...

Subject: RE: 5
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 07:20 AM

Can you have a negative prime number?

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 07:34 AM

Edgar asked exactly that question--well, not exactly but pretty close:
(Found this on the www.)

"Why Aren't There Negative Prime Numbers?


Date: 12/10/1999 at 00:12:32
From: Edgar Lopez
Subject: Prime Numbers

Can negative numbers be prime numbers?

In my math book it says that a prime number is a whole number greater
than 1 that has only two factors, 1 and itself. So why can't, for
example, (-5) be prime? Its factors would be -5 and 1. I don't get it.

Is it because 5 and (-1) are also factors of (-5)? I say no because
(-1) and (-5) would then be factors of 5, and 5 wouldn't be prime. I
don't understand and neither does my teacher. We tried to figure it
out, and then she told me to ask you.

Date: 12/10/1999 at 19:24:14
From: Doctor Ian
Subject: Re: Prime Numbers

Hi Edgar,

This is an excellent question, but in order to understand the answer,
you have to get a feel for what mathematics is about. It's not about
cranking numbers through equations and getting answers, and it's not
about balancing your checkbook or figuring out how long it will take
Bill and Janet to mow the lawn if they work together, and it's not
about building bridges or telephones or sending spaceships to other
planets. Those are all _uses_ of math, but mathematics itself is about
searching for patterns.

The most interesting patterns are the ones that hold for the largest
classes of numbers. So something that is true for all numbers is more
interesting than something that is true for just integers, or just
prime numbers, or just numbers smaller than 10, or just the number 17.

(Note that 'patterns' are sometimes called 'theorems,' and sometimes
called 'properties'. For example, the prime number theorem, which says
that any composite number can be broken into a product of primes, is
one kind of pattern. The commutative property of addition, which says
that you can add numbers in any order, is another kind of pattern.)

Before anyone figured out the need for negative numbers,
mathematicians had already discovered lots of patterns involving prime
numbers. So when negative numbers came along, making some of them
prime would have caused a lot of patterns (patterns that looked like
"For any prime number, blah blah blah") to stop being true. That would
have been annoying without serving any real purpose, and so the
definition of primes was adjusted to exclude negative numbers.

This, by the way, is why zero and one aren't prime numbers either,
although you can make some good arguments for why they should be. If
they were considered prime, then a lot of patterns that now look like
"For any prime number, blah blah blah" would have to be changed to
"For any prime number except one or zero, blah blah blah." That makes
the patterns uglier, and harder to remember. ("Oh, wait - does this
pattern for prime numbers also apply to zero?")

Mathematics turns out to have so many practical uses that it's easy to
forget that the mathematicians who are creating it, in many cases,
really don't care whether the patterns they are finding have any more
uses than a song, or a painting.

I hope this helps. Thanks for asking an interesting question. Be sure
to write back if you have others.

- Doctor Ian, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ "

Subject: RE: 5
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 07:34 AM

Can you have a negative prime number?

When Ada-80 was being designed, part of a quiz was ask what 'div' (integer division) and 'mod' (remainder of an integer division) sums were for:

7 div 3
-7 div 3
7 div -3
-7 div -3

7 mod 3
-7mod 3
7 mod -3
-7 mod -3

And also to ask which of several identities were true, such as
x = (x div y)*y + (x mod y)
(-x) div (-y) = x div y

and so on. It became quite clear that almost no-one has a good intuitive grasp of div and mod outside strictly positive nmbers.

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,-6
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 07:39 AM

"We'd better ask Cameron, hadn't we? He is the Prime minister..."

Well as many here would respond, he's certainly a Prime Prick !!!

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 08:49 AM

What I don't get is why some folks say they're past their prime. Which prime? I just passed sixty-one three years ago, so I'll be back in my prime in another three years. I mean like looking at the prime numbers between 0 and 100 they are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97. Ya have a 1 in 4 chance of being in your prime assuming you live to be 97. So I had it all made clear to me in this three minute video from black and white days. Here y'are.

The conclusion I draw from those numbers is this: yer odds of being in your prime don't look so good for even-numbered years.

It ain't happened yet for me. But I keep hoping . . .

Subject: RE: 5
From: Becca72
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 10:17 AM

One IS the loneliest number...

Subject: RE: 5
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM

anyone for Fibonacci?

Subject: RE: 5
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 10:53 AM

"anyone for Fibonacci?"

Now you're talking. With puttanesca sauce and a couple of glasses of nice Chianti.

Subject: RE: 5
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 02:13 PM

LOL, what kind of salad?

Subject: RE: 5
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:49 PM

1 head of lettuce, 1 stick celery, two salad onions, three radishes, five tomatoes, eight olives, thirteen capers......

Subject: RE: 5
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 03:54 PM

That was a prime lookin' salad until the olives . . .

Subject: RE: 5
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 05:44 PM

"Come in Number 99, your time is up"

"'Ere boss, we ain't got no Number 99"

"OH!.............Number 66, is everything all right?"

Don T