2007 sums up to 9 (= 2+0+0+7) which is divisible by 3. Hence 2007 is also divisible by 3, and thus is not prime.
Verification : 2007 / 3 = 669 Gaah! Almost had 666 there, which as you may be aware, could have provided a good reason for the unseasonably warm weather. Alas, 'tis not meant to be...
That justification, if I may say, is completely ridiculous. I will proceed with a counterexample.
2011. This is undoubtedly a prime number. If I apply your method: 2011 sums up to 4. 4 is divisible by 2, and thus 2011 should be divisible by 2. Or not.
However, I am prepared to admit that your justification may have been a joke. Ha. Haha.
Clearly so.
ReplyDelete2007 sums up to 9 (= 2+0+0+7) which is divisible by 3. Hence 2007 is also divisible by 3, and thus is not prime.
Verification : 2007 / 3 = 669
Gaah! Almost had 666 there, which as you may be aware, could have provided a good reason for the unseasonably warm weather. Alas, 'tis not meant to be...
That justification, if I may say, is completely ridiculous. I will proceed with a counterexample.
ReplyDelete2011. This is undoubtedly a prime number. If I apply your method:
2011 sums up to 4. 4 is divisible by 2, and thus 2011 should be divisible by 2. Or not.
However, I am prepared to admit that your justification may have been a joke. Ha. Haha.