[seqfan] negative prime numbers

[Vladimir Orlovsky]

Richard Mathar wrote:

*V. Orlovsky is defending his definition in A174397 (with negative numbers,
obviously) with a link to **
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/negative_primes.html*<http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/negative_primes.html>
*arguing that primes can be negative numbers, so the mention of absolute
values in the definition is not needed. I cannot make friend with that idea.
Is there a general consensus (at least within the OEIS) that primes are >=2
?
*
Well, this is not entirely correct..
and I will start with this one:

*Although the number 1 used to be considered a prime (Goldbach 1742; Lehmer
1909, 1914; Hardy and Wright 1979, p. 11; Gardner 1984, pp. 86-87; Sloane
and Plouffe 1995, p. 33; Hardy 1999, p. 46), it requires special treatment
in so many definitions and applications involving primes greater than or
equal to 2 that it is usually placed into a class of its own*
-- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html

and this is what I actually wrote to him:
*well, I kind of follow this philosophy: **
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/negative_primes.html*<http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/negative_primes.html>
*it can be more then one "Answer"*

I'm NOT defent anythink-anyone...
My major point is: it is a *debatable topics, *and that's all!
I read that some people (Jonathan Post, Charles Greathouse, etc...) already
jump on this subject
and expressed there personal view... and that's fine! that's actually very
good....
Goldbach, Lehmer, Hardy and Wright... debated before us...

But I think, Richard looking for ....`consensus within the OEIS`
and this is very-very different topics.

p.s.
personally,  I think `real-true-prime-numbers` start from
5(positive,negative or `what-ever`), and 1,2,3  are "*special class of its
own"*
But this is my personal openion and nothing more.


Vladimir Orlovsky
4vladimir at gmail.com