My dear C. , primes
as head of the department I would like to ask you, do not continue to claim publicly that the official view of our association is that prime numbers do not always necessarily have to be odd.
This statement is utter nonsense and contrary to any predetermined view on the definition of a prime number (without regard to 0 and 2).
Furthermore, I note that had called in last fall number show in the class 'prime 500-1000' the victor in its lists, the numbers 554, 682 and 924 and was not disqualified, besides are among the enumerations of the first ten finishers in total 23 non-primes. This is more surprising than that both a brand new Aufzählordnung was available, and the director of the event to compensate for dyscalculia a differentiated list of approved prime numbers was available.
you I would ask you to address the issues and to correct properly.
greetings
B.
Hi B.
your claims are completely covered and your behavior unacceptable. The BGB Board at its meeting noted the majority that it is quite common that prime numbers are. The definition of prime number is only a rough recommendation and over time it is simply required to be open to new ideas.
your criticism of the number of autumn show is absolutely unnecessary and nothing more than pure Fehlersucherei. We decided in the Civil Code Board that you are now no longer responsible for the area of prime numbers. Your last criticism of our events clearly shows that we have placed in you simply no longer trust can.
I would like to remind you, is you're also not exactly covered with glory, as you publicly criticized the decision of the Civil Code, the Board, that the earth was flat, on the Internet in relevant forums and have described as absurd and unrealistic. The BGB Board does have the skills to make decisions about the basic shape of the earth for the benefit of our association to be made.
on behalf of the BGB Board
C.
0 comments:
Post a Comment