No, he’s right. “For any odd prime” is a not-unheard-of expression. It is usually to rule out 2 as a trivial case which may need to be handled separately.
It’s not unheard of no, but if you have to rule out two for some reason it’s because of some other arbitrary choice. In the first instance (haven’t yet looked at the second and third one) it has to do with the fact that a sum of “two” was chosen arbitrary. You can come up with other things that requires you to exclude primes up to five.
Okay? Like I said, it’s usually to rule out cases where 2 is a trivial edge case. It’s common enough that “for any odd prime / let p be an odd prime” is a normal expression. That’s all.
“even” just means divisible by two. So it’s not unique at all. Two is the only prime that’s even divisible by two and three is the only prime that’s divisible by three. You just think two is a special prime because there is a word for “divisible by two” but the prime two isn’t any more special or unique in any meaningful way than any other prime.
Of couse all the others are odd because otherwise they wouldn’t be prime. All primes after three are also not divisible by three… “magic”. The only difference is that there are is no word like “even” or “odd” for “divisible by three” or “not divisible by three”.
I thought like you at one time… I’d eat a bowl of cereal and be starving by 10:00, but I’ve been skipping breakfast for almost a year now, and the weird thing is I’m no more hungry at 10 than I was with breakfast - so if it’s not staving off the hunger, what’s the point? And I’ve lost a little weight too.
I have the exact story. If i eat breakfast I feel I’ll starve by lunch. Now no late dinners and breakfast and I’m not even that hungry by lunch. Lost 20 kilos of lockdown bulk as well and my body wants to stay around 74 which is good enough for me.
The best part is I get to eat what I want and how much I want for two meals with no care whatsoever.
Sure, and while we’re at it, let’s just skip all meals to save money! These fucking people, man. Anything to shy away from the fact that we the people are getting fleeced.
But seriously, why are we letting these dragons hoard wealth for no real reason other than bigger number makes them feel more important.
Economies work best when money is moving fast between the lower and middle classes. Wealth tax the fuck out of the obscenely rich and give incentives to raise wages, suddenly people are able to spend more and whatdoyaknow the economy grows.
I get the “haha” of this particular search getting reported on…but I think that this sort of surveillance is definitely stepping into creepy territory that will end up doing more harm than good.
There were definitely web searches I performed about topics back when I was younger that I would never want my parents to know. When you live in an oppressive household where you are taught never to think outside of the box or be anything your parents don’t want you to be, having the internet available is supposed to be a path to liberation.
If they want to set up filters that block certain results, fine. But tattling is just unethical, especially if the child does not know their search history is being monitored by their parents.
to investigate, study, or analyze : look into
➡️sometimes used with indirect questions
This definition makes no distinction between factual and speculative, and in fact invites speculative use with the second point. Additionally, there’s a long history of using the word “explore” in this exact type of situation.
Anyway, the point is, don’t be such a wet blanket, plz.
The thing is, parents get incredibly conflicted messages about this. When a child DOES end up looking at something bad parents get all the blame for not supervising and controlling their child and get called abusive. If they supervise and control their child they get called helicopter parents or abusive as well.
And it’s not only regarding the internet. When parents let their children roam, for example, the neighborhood and something bad happens, the parents get the blame and called abusive for letting their child roam the neighborhood. If they control outdoors time for they child, they are abusive again.
It literally doesn’t matter what you do as a parent, a lot of people will call you a bad parent or an abuser for it. I believe it is one reason why some people don’t want to have children at all. It’s basically an impossible task.
This sort of oppressive situation is my childhood in a nutshell. And you’re right, it’s entirely unethical, and in combination with other factors can be used as a factor in psychological abuse. I know I at least am traumatized from it, and surveillance was definitely one of many signifigant factors.
Exactly. Kids grown in high volume of surveillance (e.g. my nieces) end up being more aggressive towards rules, which creates people who think rules are there to be broken.
lemmy.ml
Active