Talk:1 no longer prime
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
The gist of this should be dealt with at prime number. Redirecting again. Charles Matthews 17:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok but its not and as you said it would be a very big discussion so it warrants its own page. Cyclotronwiki 02:33, 27 Apr 2005 Taipei
Look, it is absurd for you to copy into WP things I wrote to you in answer to your question. If you have a real interest in this matter, you should try to verify what I suggested. That is, research the question. It is a mildly interesting historical point, that's all. Like it says below the edit box:
- Please cite your sources so others can check your work.
If you just add stuff like this, WP becomes less reliable. It is not meant to contain people's personal theories.
If you come up with something solid about this, come back and add it. Otherwise this isn't at all helpful.
Charles Matthews 18:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes I know that was cheeky but I couldn't cite you since you removed it from your user talk page.
The number 1 being prime then not prime isn't a "personal theory" but an event in the history of mathematics. I'm glad you acknowledge the historical side of it but then you state it cannot be written about? No matter how mathematical you are this seems like censorship.
Cyclotronwiki 03:07, 27 Apr 2005 Taipei
Start a discussion about improving the 1 no longer prime page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "1 no longer prime" page.
