Difference between revisions of "Talk:622: Haiku Proof"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added a comment)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
: I've put it back, since the paragraph is correct - the proof is incorrect. That second apostrophe just means it is the product belonging to the top prime's divisors. The product of the top prime's divisors is just the top prime. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.234|141.101.98.234]] 14:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 
: I've put it back, since the paragraph is correct - the proof is incorrect. That second apostrophe just means it is the product belonging to the top prime's divisors. The product of the top prime's divisors is just the top prime. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.234|141.101.98.234]] 14:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 +
: "All primes' divisors'" would've been correct (although the "divisors" is still unnecessary). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.185|108.162.254.185]] 10:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
I made a new poem:
 +
The product of all-
 +
Primes, plus one, divisors are?-
 +
Q.E.D., ******s! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.148|108.162.216.148]] 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 +
 +
I want a t-shirt with that last line on it.[[User:Aronurr|Aronurr]] ([[User talk:Aronurr|talk]]) 21:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
How about this:
 +
Product of all primes/plus one. Either we missed some/or this is prime too. [[User:Hhhguir|Hhhguir]] ([[User talk:Hhhguir|talk]]) 08:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:45, 4 March 2022

A prime number must also be a natural number greater that one. -- ‎204.8.8.13 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I removed the paragraph about the haiku being off, as it is not "top prime's divisors," but "top prime's divisors' " (notice the second apostrophe). So the question is actually what the (prime) factors of the product of all prime divisors plus one are. KillaBilla (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've put it back, since the paragraph is correct - the proof is incorrect. That second apostrophe just means it is the product belonging to the top prime's divisors. The product of the top prime's divisors is just the top prime. --141.101.98.234 14:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"All primes' divisors'" would've been correct (although the "divisors" is still unnecessary). --108.162.254.185 10:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I made a new poem: The product of all- Primes, plus one, divisors are?- Q.E.D., ******s! 108.162.216.148 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I want a t-shirt with that last line on it.Aronurr (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

How about this: Product of all primes/plus one. Either we missed some/or this is prime too. Hhhguir (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)