test please delete

[PRC1964]

Its more that I have ever had

I had a free pint and a sarnie once.

Since then I've gone direct.

[NickFitz]

Right I'm going home

Bye angel

[BrilloPad]

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PalindromicNumber.html

So 0 is a palindromic number

I never quite understood why 1 is not prime - is it cos divisible only by 1 and itself - and 1 and 1 does not make sense?

[PRC1964]

and was there a post numbered 0 ?

Yes, but I deleted it.

[TheFaQQer]

I would think that 11 would be the first true palindrome - does a single digit count? More research needed, I think....

Yes, a single digit number is classed as a palindrome.

Therefore 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 are all palindromic. sas obviously got the lowest one, but zeity, mcquiggd and TLG also got the shortest palindromes.

[TheFaQQer]

No.

Shalln't.

And you can't make me.

can't

(a touch harsh, but fair )

[NickFitz]

I never quite understood why 1 is not prime - is it cos divisible only by 1 and itself - and 1 and 1 does not make sense?

The number 1 is a special case which is considered neither prime nor composite (Wells 1986, p. 31). Although the number 1 used to be considered a prime (Goldbach 1742; Lehmer 1909; Lehmer 1914; Hardy and Wright 1979, p. 11; Gardner 1984, pp. 86-87; Sloane and Plouffe 1995, p. 33; Hardy 1999, p. 46), it requires special treatment in so many definitions and applications involving primes greater than or equal to 2 that it is usually placed into a class of its own. A good reason not to call 1 a prime number is that if 1 were prime, then the statement of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would have to be modified since "in exactly one way" would be false because any n=n.1. In other words, unique factorization into a product of primes would fail if the primes included 1. A slightly less illuminating but mathematically correct reason is noted by Tietze (1965, p. 2), who states "Why is the number 1 made an exception? This is a problem that schoolboys often argue about, but since it is a question of definition, it is not arguable." As more simply noted by Derbyshire (2004, p. 33), "2 pays its way [as a prime] on balance; 1 doesn't."

HTH

[PRC1964]

Bugger, Mrs PRC wants me to go and watch Hugh Fearnly Whatsisface breed chickens.

All because I said I'd quite like a couple of chickens in the garden.

[TheFaQQer]

I thought that was FaQs ?

It is, but as long as everyone keeps visiting, I don't care who advertises the links

[PRC1964]

Bump.

I posted in the other thread and this wasn't top any more.