The complex numbers are a field Unique factorization was a driving force beneath its changing of status, since it's formulation is quickier if 1 is not considered a prime It's a fundamental formula not only in arithmetic but also in the whole of math
Number One Balloon
Is there a proof for it or is it just assumed?
How do i convince someone that $1+1=2$ may not necessarily be true
I once read that some mathematicians provided a very length proof of $1+1=2$ Can you think of some way to ็ฅไน๏ผไธญๆไบ่็ฝ้ซ่ดจ้็้ฎ็ญ็คพๅบๅๅไฝ่ ่้็ๅๅๅ ๅฎนๅนณๅฐ๏ผไบ 2011 ๅนด 1 ๆๆญฃๅผไธ็บฟ๏ผไปฅใ่ฎฉไบบไปฌๆดๅฅฝ็ๅไบซ็ฅ่ฏใ็ป้ชๅ่ง่งฃ๏ผๆพๅฐ่ชๅทฑ็่งฃ็ญใไธบๅ็ไฝฟๅฝใ There are infinitely many possible values for $1^i$, corresponding to different branches of the complex logarithm
The confusing point here is that the formula $1^x = 1$ is not part of the definition of complex exponentiation, although it is an immediate consequence of the definition of natural number exponentiation. ไธค่พนๆฑๅ๏ผๆไปฌๆ ln (n+1)<1/1+1/2+1/3+1/4+โฆโฆ+1/n ๅฎนๆ็๏ผ \lim _ {n\rightarrow +\infty }\ln \left ( n+1\right) =+\infty ๏ผๆไปฅ่ฟไธชๅๆฏๆ ็็๏ผไธๆถๆใ ็ฅไนๆฏไธไธชไธญๆไบ่็ฝ้ซ่ดจ้้ฎ็ญ็คพๅบๅๅไฝ่ ่้็ๅๅๅ ๅฎนๅนณๅฐ๏ผๆไพ็ฅ่ฏๅ ฑไบซใไบๅจไบคๆตๅไธชไบบๆ้ฟๆบไผใ We are basically asking that what transformation is required to get back to the identity transformation whose basis vectors are i ^ (1,0) and j ^ (0,1).
Intending on marking as accepted, because i'm no mathematician and this response makes sense to a commoner
However, i'm still curious why there is 1 way to permute 0 things, instead of 0 ways. 49 actually 1 was considered a prime number until the beginning of 20th century
