>>14300343> every natural number n is an n-multiple of 1, so there are no prime numbers >:^)Good one, jerk off, but obviously the definition meant that:
> A prime number is a natural number that is not a multiple of some other natural number [or one].>inb4 b-but doesn't that definition arbitrarily exclude 1 (one) in some capacity as well!1!!11NO, because all natural numbers are multiples of 1 (one) — as the faggot who I'm replying to has also pointed out — so a definition that doesn't exclude 1 (one) as a possible multiple cannot delineate primes from all other natural numbers UNTIL that clarification is made (i.e. the exclusion is necessary and not arbitrary or for convenience).
if you still don't like that definition, see this anon's
>>14300284P.S. — by your misguided reading of that definition, there wouldn't be "no primes" as you claimed but one since 1 (one) would still actually count as a prime number—if, perhaps, the only prime number—since 1 is "a natural number that is not a multiple of some other natural number" almost by definition, making it the primiest of primes as
>>14301070 says.
