( a , b , c ) : ( 17 , 2 , 1 ) , ( 13 , 11 ,2 ) , ( 13 , 10 , 5 ) Combinazioni scambiando a con b o con c b con a o con c c con a o con b Stesso discorso con a , b , c negativi ! 😊
1 is indeed prime. That is excluded by standard definitions. But that is the same stupidity that causes Venn logic to fail by presuming that stating the existence of a set presumes that they is some member to the set. Lewis Carroll’s critique and opposite presumption in his symbolic logic make four a complete symbolic logic system, which Venn is not. Similarly, with primes, defining 1 to not be a prime creates unneeded problems. The definition for primes is rightly natural numbers divisible only by themselves and one, which does NOT mandate that there are TWO number divisors. One is the special cases where the two divisors are equal. 1 = 1. The appropriate reply to mathematicians asserting that 1 isn’t prime is PTHTHTHTH. Going back further, defining 1 as non-prime creates a system that corresponds to calculating systems before the number 0 was defined. Because 0 cannot be a number. By definition it is nothing. It is the absence of a number. Defining things that way creates no end of problems. This also harkens back to Copernicus and many before him who found that the Earth was round and NOT the center of the solar system. Defining the Earth as center was stupid and wrong. So to is defining 1 as non-prime.
So in this case I prefer to guess numbers
For positive integers there are 4 solutions:
1) 1, 2, 17
2) 7, 7, 14
3) 5, 10, 13
4) 2, 11, 13
Only the last one contains all primes.
Good video and nice explain lesson so I say thank you very much
My answer is 1, 2, 17
1 is not prime.
@@piman9280 This is what happens when I solve based on the thumbnail.
In set notation, there is only one solution, namely {2, 11, 13}.
( a , b , c ) :
( 17 , 2 , 1 ) , ( 13 , 11 ,2 ) , ( 13 , 10 , 5 )
Combinazioni scambiando
a con b o con c
b con a o con c
c con a o con b
Stesso discorso con
a , b , c negativi ! 😊
Спасибо
7,7,14
I also find 13, 10, 5
10 is not prime.
1 2 and 17 works 1+4+289 = 294
1 is not prime.
@@АнтонСавин-и4т Nothing was said about prime
I was wrong about the prime
1 is not a prime, so the 1,2,17 solution isn't all primes.
1 is indeed prime. That is excluded by standard definitions. But that is the same stupidity that causes Venn logic to fail by presuming that stating the existence of a set presumes that they is some member to the set. Lewis Carroll’s critique and opposite presumption in his symbolic logic make four a complete symbolic logic system, which Venn is not. Similarly, with primes, defining 1 to not be a prime creates unneeded problems. The definition for primes is rightly natural numbers divisible only by themselves and one, which does NOT mandate that there are TWO number divisors. One is the special cases where the two divisors are equal. 1 = 1. The appropriate reply to mathematicians asserting that 1 isn’t prime is PTHTHTHTH.
Going back further, defining 1 as non-prime creates a system that corresponds to calculating systems before the number 0 was defined. Because 0 cannot be a number. By definition it is nothing. It is the absence of a number. Defining things that way creates no end of problems.
This also harkens back to Copernicus and many before him who found that the Earth was round and NOT the center of the solar system. Defining the Earth as center was stupid and wrong. So to is defining 1 as non-prime.
Наркоманы