[seqfan] Re: A174397 and primes with negative value.

[franktaw at netscape.net]

My cut at this is that negations of primes are very definitely prime.  
However, "the primes" is usually shorthand for "the primes of N" or 
"the primes of the non-negative integers" (these are the same, since 0 
is not prime).

This being the case, any use of "prime" to include the negative primes 
should be clearly identified.  A phrase like "positive or negative 
prime" is quite sufficient.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Mathar <mathar at strw.leidenuniv.nl>

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
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 ?