> A prime number has exactly 2 integer factors.
> With that definition 1 is ruled out as it's only got 1 factor which is 1.
1 may be divided by 1, or by -1
it has 2 integer factors
> Just to use the correct definition.
A natural number greater or equal than 2 is prime if...
By the way, if you allow complex factors then 13 is not prime
13 = (3+j2) (3-j2)
@ ne555: Since when can a negative number be a factor? Or is this a different use of the word "factor" then for example: "Factors of '12' are '2' and '3' "?
EDIT: I'm not trying to butt heads by the way, this is a legitimate question on my part.
EDIT 2: Never mind, I'm so used to seeing complex numbers written with the variable on the right hand side of the mutiplicand that it took me a minute to realize that it's just a binomial you wrote and not something more complex. I'm chalking this one up to my American education.
I know, but I am used to the convention that letter values, whether they are const or variable, go after coefficients. I didn't know if my understand of this convention was incorrect.
Also, it is worth stating that any prime number that can be represented as the sum of two squares has got complex factors with integer coefficients.
Mathematically:
If p^2+q^2 (where p and q are integers) is prime the it has complex factors:
(p+jq)(p-jq)
and
(q+jp)(q-jp)
Er, I know some math, but why are we using j for √(-1) instead of i?
And, while integer multiplication is commutative, it is standard to write the coefficient first, so that (3+j2) is universally understood when written (3+2i).