[seqfan] negative prime numbers

Fri Mar 19 20:09:23 CET 2010

```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..

*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*

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!
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.