Talk:Regular prime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|||||
| Mathematics rating: | Stub Class | Low Priority | Field: Number theory | ||
| Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article. | |||||
Alright, I can't follow exactly what a regular prime is, but I'm pretty sure that 2 is either regular or irregular. Thus, it should appear on one of the lists of the first few fooregular primes. LizardWizard 04:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- That is a little like asking for a two-sided polygon and trying to distinguish it from a straight line. --Henrygb 16:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- 2 would be regular, FWIW. Charles Matthews 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- But it is not considered either way, in part because of the statement in the article "Historically, regular primes were considered by Kummer since he was able to prove that Fermat's last theorem holds true for regular prime exponents (and consequently for all exponents that were multiples of regular primes)." --Henrygb 14:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Sloppy, I think. But let's have odd primes only as regular, then. Charles Matthews 20:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- By the definition we give 2 should be trivially regular; the field in question is gotten by adjoining -1 to the rationals (i.e., is the rationals); and its class number is 1. But odd prime is probably best. Septentrionalis 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sloppy, I think. But let's have odd primes only as regular, then. Charles Matthews 20:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kummer
Isn't Kummer's proof for the first case of FLT, where p doesn't divide any of the three bases, a, b, c? Septentrionalis 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jensen
The infinitude of irregular primes wasn't proven by Johan Jensen, but by K L Jensen; see [1] or search Zentrallblatt for the reference, which is: K. L. Jensen, "Om talteoretiske Egenskaber ved de {\it Bernoulliske} Tal" (Danish), published in Nyt Tidsskr. for Math. 26, pages 73--83 (1915). Throwawayhack 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Way too hard to follow
This article is simply way too hard to follow. It would be much better if someone actually made an effort to explain the subject instead of just relying on an intense burst of jargon in the opening sentence that is utterly impossible for the layman to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.109.134 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is how sources define regular primes. I think it would be too complicated to try to explain the technical linked terms here, but I have moved the simpler looking Bernoulli number criterion to the first paragraph: [2]. Is that better? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
