From: Rudolf Polzer <abuse@...>
Date: 2003-03-25T18:42:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Expression results

Scripsit ille aut illa �Gavin Sinclair� <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au>:
> On Sunday, March 23, 2003, 10:50:50 AM, Rudolf wrote:
> 
> > | 31: The Arbitrary Prime --
> > |         Determined by unanimous unvote.  We needed an arbitrary prime in
> > |         case the prof asked for one, and so had an election.  91 received
> > |         the most votes (well, it *looks* prime) and 3+4i the next most.
> > |         However, 31 was the only candidate to receive none at all.
> 
> > Try to find all mistakes. I see two nonobvious mistakes in there...
> 
> > BTW: 91 is the second composite number which looks prime. 1 is the first
> > one, of course.
> 
> 
> I don't know what you actually call 1, but it's not composite (doesn't
> have prime factors).

Sorry, I meant nonprime... well, for some reason, 51 and 57 are sometimes
mistaken as primes. But 91 is the first one only divisible by nonobvious
divisors in the base-10 system: 7 and 13.

> What are the nonobvious mistakes in there?

- 3+4i isn't prime, it's (2+i)**2.

- 31 was the *ONLY* candidate to receive none at all => there were
  infinitely many votes of a finite number of students. If you need
  an *ARBITRARY* prime, of course EVERY prime is a candidate.


-- 
Desweiteren fiel mir auf, das die Kommandozeile immer statt '?' ein
Fragezeichen generierte.
     [Da_David in t-online.homepage.technik; OE hat mal wieder versagt]