talkmagic.co.uk

IanKendall wrote:The sad thing is that many people won't get the joke.

Take care, Ian

It took a few seconds to sink in before I realised lol .

i don't get it.
sorry.

aporia wrote:i don't get it.
sorry.

A prime number cannot be divided by any number other than itself or 1.

If the new number is 4x the previous prime then it cannot be a prime because it is divisible by the old number.

Discombobulator wrote:

aporia wrote:i don't get it.
sorry.

A prime number cannot be divided by any number other than itself or 1.

If the new number is 4x the previous prime then it cannot be a prime because it is divisible by the old number.

And 4....

and 2...

Richard

Ah, I didn't realise that it was a joke. I thought it was four times larger in the same way that vanilla ice cream is four time nicer than chocolate.

Reminds me of a "news item" on "The Day Today". Something like:

"Mathematicians have discovered a new whole number between 27 and 28. They don't know what it's for, but they do know that it's exactly divisible by 3 - but only once."

Barry

But if we multiply all known primes and then add 1...

...and take away the number you first thought of...

.....so now you're thinking "there are no prime numbers in Denmark" ?

I expect there are, but they probably call them something that we can't pronounce.

magicofthemind wrote:I expect there are, but they probably call them something that we can't pronounce.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a joke murdered so brutally.

Lenoir wrote:

magicofthemind wrote:I expect there are, but they probably call them something that we can't pronounce.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a joke murdered so brutally.

Sorry, but my sense of humour is so dry that you could use it to start a fire. It must be all the maths that was drummed into me...

Lenoir wrote:American Scientists claim they have found a new largest prime number. They say it's four times larger than the previous highest.

Hahaha.

I certainly hope this isn't an American stereotype.... but it obviously is.

But...

You might say that 13 is four times larger than three. For it is, and then some. At least I think it would be correct to say that.

JakeThePerformer wrote:But...

You might say that 13 is four times larger than three. For it is, and then some. At least I think it would be correct to say that.

You might think that it is correct but you'd be wrong, IMHO. It's the "and some" part that proves the error in your maths. 2+2=4, not "3 and some unspecified additional value". Indeed, the more I think about it and the more I rewrite my reply the weirder I think your idea on this is.