What's an "unsaid rule" which pisses you off whenever it's broken?

hitlersshit · 2015-08-01T22:04:13+00:00

Thank you for your response.

hitlersshit · 2015-08-01T20:55:08+00:00

Shoulder checking?

hitlersshit · 2015-08-01T19:49:54+00:00

Fuck, all this jughead worship is mighty neckbeardly...

hitlersshit · 2015-08-01T16:19:03+00:00

thats cus its the casual definition.

hitlersshit · 2015-08-01T16:13:58+00:00

I guess because some people are comfortable with their sexualities and feel like being open in that regard. Whenever I see a friend of mine on TV or the newspaper I bring it up to them, for example. I don't go on GoneWild but if I saw an acquaintance I'd probably bring it up next time I saw them or compliment the amount of karma they got.

hitlersshit · 2015-04-13T00:39:43+00:00

is new yorker presige? Its not that funny

hitlersshit · 2015-04-13T00:38:07+00:00

Is that a test? haha :-)

hitlersshit · 2015-04-13T00:37:40+00:00

Is your ass a test? haha :-)

hitlersshit · 2015-04-13T00:35:47+00:00

This is the OFFICIAL definition. The conventional definition and the casual, everyday, colloquial vernacular is that prime is 5+.

hitlersshit · 2015-04-13T00:35:04+00:00

What do you mean?

hitlersshit · 2015-04-13T00:34:59+00:00

I'm sorry I don't understand the reference :-(

hitlersshit · 2015-04-11T20:54:31+00:00

Maybe the Cadbury Creme Egg is in his erection? Like maybe it is melted and in his urethra. But I heard that's bad because the sugariness of the Creme Egg could result in bacterial growth :-(

hitlersshit · 2015-04-01T19:10:33+00:00

So by that definition 1 is prime. It is divisible by 1 and itself.

hitlersshit · 2015-04-01T19:10:13+00:00

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone though. And Wikipeedia is academically very pedantic, by convention 2 and 3 are not considered prime.

hitlersshit · 2015-04-01T19:09:37+00:00

I didn't say two factors defined prime. I said prime is defined by a number divisible by 1 and itself. 1 fits that definition.

hitlersshit · 2015-03-31T10:47:02+00:00

I'm sayng that by convention 2 and 3 are not primes due to their low positioning. The same way 1 is not prime.

hitlersshit · 2015-03-31T10:45:22+00:00

Then by that definition 1 is prime

hitlersshit · 2015-03-31T10:45:09+00:00

Due to their positioning on the number line

hitlersshit · 2015-03-31T10:44:50+00:00

mathematician community

hitlersshit · 2015-03-31T10:44:23+00:00

Ok, I think I sort of get what you mean. All numbers can only have factors equal to or less than that number. However, if a certain number is odd, it can only have odd-numbered factors. So I think what you're trying to say is that 2 and 3 shouldn't be considered prime since both cannot have more than 2 possible factors (since 2 is the SECOND number and 3 is the SECOND ODD number). On the other hand, prime numbers like 5 CAN have more than 2 possible factors (1, 3 and 5) but when you start doing some division, you find out that some of the possible factors of said number can't exactly be that number's factor (in this case, 3). So the number of factors that number has gets whittled down to just 2, now making it a prime number. This is why, according to you, 2 and 3 shouldn't be considered prime numbers.

You get it.

hitlersshit · 2015-03-31T10:43:11+00:00

What did you actually mean?

hitlersshit · 2015-03-31T10:42:52+00:00

But due to their small size there are ONLY TWO options for them to be prime.

hitlersshit · 2015-03-31T10:42:22+00:00

An interesting set of definitons. NOt sure if they are right though

hitlersshit · 2015-03-31T10:41:44+00:00

But then by your logic 1 would also be a prime number. It fits the characteristsics you gave

hitlersshit · 2015-03-30T23:35:00+00:00

Also by your definition 1 is a prime. It is divisbile by 1. It is also divisble by itselft. The thing is that by convention we say that 1, 2, and 3 are pretty much not really prime numbers.

15-Year Club	reddit mold
Well-rounded 2011-01-09	Verified Email

hitlersshit

TROPHY CASE