This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EyeSerene (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 8 August 2007 (→[]: speedy delete (G1)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:26, 8 August 2007 by EyeSerene (talk | contribs) (→[]: speedy delete (G1))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Prime prime number
- Prime prime number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Probable WP:HOAX, stubby definition. — Coren 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Total bullocks. Worse, it gives the definition of a prime number, then lists several 9, which isn't a prime number. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Delete A mathematical hoax? Looks like a bit of math (or as the Brits call it, maths) student whimsy, or perhaps Mr. Steely is chortling over this as he describes it to his students. The article indicates that a prime prime number can even be divided by "itself, 1 or any other non-prime prime number". Thus, a "prime prime" number is not a "prime number", since it can be divided by something other than itself or 1. But what's a "non-prime prime" number? I guess I don't care care. Mandsford 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly, I don't think this is quite blatantly nonsensical enough to speedy. But delete anyway. —David Eppstein 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment; the original editor explained his contribution on my talk page. Anyone who hesitates on whether this article should be deleted or not should probably check there first. :-) — Coren 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- As an aside, I wonder what a patternation is, and whether they would allow me to perceive the machinations of prime numbers. — Coren 16:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A real mathematician could put together a much better hoax than this one. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced, unverifiable and unsalvageably incoherent. Borderline CSD G1. I humbly suggest early close as this is a prime waste of everybody's time time. TreeKittens 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As a hoax. Seems that by this definition, most numbers would be "prime prime", but I'm not sure. Math's confusing this early in the morning. Useight 17:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. A hoax, and a poorly written, confusing hoax at best. James Luftan 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as G1 (nonsense), and unconvincing at that. 'non-prime prime'... EyeSerene 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)