The title here, and the main claim of the video, are simply and obviously wrong. 2² and 3² are both counterexamples. That they appear to acknowledge this, mid-way through a 14 minute video, and...
The title here, and the main claim of the video, are simply and obviously wrong. 2² and 3² are both counterexamples. That they appear to acknowledge this, mid-way through a 14 minute video, and offhandedly argue that 2 and 3 shouldn't be considered prime, does not make the claim correct (I read transcripts of these sorts of videos that don't appear to have any reason to be videos).
Wikipedia, on the page about 24, gives the correct claim:
any prime n greater than 3, has the property that n² – 1 is divisible by 24.
If this seem pedantic, consider whether it would be honest to have a title "Why every UK prime minister has been a man," in order to entice more people to watch a video and generate more sponsorship revenue.
Since you edited to add this: the title of the video is Squaring primes. I added the subheading on tildes and I didn’t feel like making it full of asterisks. It’s an interesting video that should...
If this seem pedantic, consider whether it would be honest to have a title "Why every UK prime minister has been a man," in order to entice more people to watch a video and generate more sponsorship revenue.
Since you edited to add this: the title of the video is Squaring primes. I added the subheading on tildes and I didn’t feel like making it full of asterisks. It’s an interesting video that should be watched as it explains an unintuitive pattern very well.
@Adys, I had the same reaction as @pallas, and didn't even bother with the video because "their" title for it was so obviously wrong. It would be trivial to amend your title to "every prime > 3"....
@Adys, I had the same reaction as @pallas, and didn't even bother with the video because "their" title for it was so obviously wrong.
It would be trivial to amend your title to "every prime > 3".
ETA: I would also argue that in the field of mathematics, there is no such thing as "overly pedantic".
Not trivial at all since i can't :) I didn't think my subheading would be so controversial. I don't think your comment is pedantic, there is something about the tone in the grand-parent comment, i...
It would be trivial to amend your title to "every prime > 3".
Not trivial at all since i can't :)
I didn't think my subheading would be so controversial. I don't think your comment is pedantic, there is something about the tone in the grand-parent comment, i can't put my finger on it ...
If you (or anyone else) thinks a topic title needs editing, feel free to ping me and I can do it (if it's a reasonable request). Speaking of which, I edited this one as suggested.
If you (or anyone else) thinks a topic title needs editing, feel free to ping me and I can do it (if it's a reasonable request). Speaking of which, I edited this one as suggested.
Stating a rule that applies only above a certain value is a very common practice in math. The title is an exaggeration though because you need to be a little bit click baity to survive on YouTube.
Stating a rule that applies only above a certain value is a very common practice in math. The title is an exaggeration though because you need to be a little bit click baity to survive on YouTube.
let p be a prime number, then p = 1,3,5,7 (mod 8) and p = 1,2 (mod 3) therefore p^2 = 1 (mod 8) and p^2 = 1 (mod 3) and we can combine these with chinese remainder theorem to get p^2 = 1 (mod 24) QED.
let p be a prime number, then p = 1,3,5,7 (mod 8) and p = 1,2 (mod 3) therefore p^2 = 1 (mod 8) and p^2 = 1 (mod 3) and we can combine these with chinese remainder theorem to get p^2 = 1 (mod 24) QED.
The title here, and the main claim of the video, are simply and obviously wrong. 2² and 3² are both counterexamples. That they appear to acknowledge this, mid-way through a 14 minute video, and offhandedly argue that 2 and 3 shouldn't be considered prime, does not make the claim correct (I read transcripts of these sorts of videos that don't appear to have any reason to be videos).
Wikipedia, on the page about 24, gives the correct claim:
If this seem pedantic, consider whether it would be honest to have a title "Why every UK prime minister has been a man," in order to entice more people to watch a video and generate more sponsorship revenue.
Take a moment to appreciate not the claim itself but the explanation. Your comment is unnecessarily pedantic.
Since you edited to add this: the title of the video is Squaring primes. I added the subheading on tildes and I didn’t feel like making it full of asterisks. It’s an interesting video that should be watched as it explains an unintuitive pattern very well.
@Adys, I had the same reaction as @pallas, and didn't even bother with the video because "their" title for it was so obviously wrong.
It would be trivial to amend your title to "every prime > 3".
ETA: I would also argue that in the field of mathematics, there is no such thing as "overly pedantic".
Not trivial at all since i can't :)
I didn't think my subheading would be so controversial. I don't think your comment is pedantic, there is something about the tone in the grand-parent comment, i can't put my finger on it ...
If you (or anyone else) thinks a topic title needs editing, feel free to ping me and I can do it (if it's a reasonable request). Speaking of which, I edited this one as suggested.
Stating a rule that applies only above a certain value is a very common practice in math. The title is an exaggeration though because you need to be a little bit click baity to survive on YouTube.
let p be a prime number, then p = 1,3,5,7 (mod 8) and p = 1,2 (mod 3) therefore p^2 = 1 (mod 8) and p^2 = 1 (mod 3) and we can combine these with chinese remainder theorem to get p^2 = 1 (mod 24) QED.