The Hungarian deli ran out of rum balls and the lady behind the counter didn’t call me honey, sweetie, luv, etc. 
1 Like
I am at a non-usual sbux: they are doing some repairs to one of the bathrooms and there is a whiff of terlet that is drifting past me!! Hoofahhhhh!!! 
1 Like
Sounded like she ran out of the sweet nothings.
1 Like
I erased “it seems you didn’t understand my email” and replaced it with “it seems my email wasn’t clear.”
2 Likes
did you remember to erase " you stupid ass"?
4 Likes
I am one of the people with a package stuck in the black hellhole of Indy’s USPS regional distribution center. “Weather delays” yeah ok. I googled it, apparently this is a whole thing right now.
2 Likes
Why, because 1 is listed as a prime number?
I was always taught that 1 was prime and have never understood the objections to calling it prime. It’s the most trivial of all primes, but prime. At least in my school books 
I am more perturbed by definitions of trapezoids that purposely omit parallelograms.
All the formulas for trapezoids work perfectly well on parallelograms. There’s no valid reason to not consider parallelograms a subset of trapezoids.
Just like equilateral triangles are a subset of isosceles triangles. No one disputes that, but call a parallelogram a trapezoid and hoo boy, that’s controversial.
1 Like
A prime is not divisible by “1 and itself”. A prime is divisible by exactly two whole numbers.
1 does not qualify. And 1 is not a “building block” of other numbers. It’s simply the multiplicative identity.
[red] I don’t think you and I can be friends anymore [/red]
I think my objection boils down to “it’s too trivial “ and mucks up the rest of math’s definitions if you include it.
2 Likes
I dunno, that’s how I was taught from whenever I first learned about prime numbers… I think through college although conceivably it never came up in college.
I believe I was in my 40s when I became aware of the existence of numerate individuals who considered 1 to be not prime.
Can’t undo 40 years of thinking of it as prime, sorry. “Itself” IS 1.
1 is divisible by 1.
1 is divisible by itself.
1 is not divisible by anything else.
Ergo, 1 is prime.
That’s what I was taught. Granted, I was not in the fanciest of school districts, but it was also in the textbooks that way.
Can we at least agree that parallelograms are trapezoids?
2 Likes
I’m not sure we can even agree on that.
This has been the worst Friday ever.
Honestly, though, I have no preference to a trapezoid being defined as “only one pair” of parallel sides vs “at least one pair”. However, to be doubly honest, I prefer the former.
1 Like
1 Like
That’s why I pointed out that the whole “divisible by itself and 1” is poor phrasing and not the actual definition. Because that phrasing clearly implies that 1 is prime.
When you did the prime factorization of a number in school, how many 1’s were in your answer? Hopefully zero, because 1 isn’t a prime factor (you know, because it’s not actually a prime number, and all that jazz) 
And sure, go ahead and call a parallelogram a trapezoid (and a square a rectangle while we’re at it). All the formulas and properties still apply (along with a few extras), so no problems there.
2 Likes
Lol. This forum really is where fun goes to die.
I totally agree, just not sure why we are all getting jumped up over it.
2 Likes
Why were you taught this in high school?
I assume you did higher level math in College…they covered this.
It is really just a definition. My earliest memories of primes always had 1 omitted. However, more recently I learned that 1 is not omitted from all lists of primes (not just by people who are mistaken), and there are reasons why it might be included. Let me see what I can turn up real quickly.
Oh, a history
Reasons it is excluded include the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would have multiple factorizations if 1 was counted as a factor (since it is the multiplicative identity element), and using it in Eratosthenes’s sieve would cause all numbers to fail to be prime (since all are divisible by 1).
1 Like
4 Likes