Prime numbers are uniformly distributed

[Epsilon=One]

The determination as to what numbers are prime numbers depends on the definition of prime numbers.

The conventional definition of prime numbers is contrived as it is the result of the combination of several sets that can be considered as unrelated, which creates the problems of analysis that exists.

I consider that:

Mathematics does not
explain Nature;
Nature explains
mathematics.

All mathematics is a function of Nature;
thus, its sublime poetry . . .

Thus, minus one cannot be a prime as Nature does not recognize negative numbers, as there is no "up" or "down" in the Cosmos. The closest that Nature comes to such recognition is the relative difference between the crest and trough of a wave.

Natural prime numbers are uniform in their distribution; that is, they can be mapped with a simple algebraic function, to the sequence of Natural integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...

Natural prime numbers are generated by the hypotenuse of any ellipse, relative to the integer value of the perigee.

[Epsilon=One]

The initial post (above) on this thread closed a thread with 25 replies and 542 views at a competing forum's topic: NUMBER THEORY; thread: Is -1 a prime number?

The monitors reply, "Sorry! This thread is closed!" within 4 minutes of the original posting was:

"Thankfully, mathematicians do their work based on definitions, not poetry. (Note: Tongue out, green "smily")

Mathematicians make definitions because the things they define are useful. And yes, sometimes we choose definitions precisely because they make certain theorems easy to state.

For example, take the fundamental theorem of algebra: evey polynomial of degree n has exactly n roots.

This is, of course, only true with the appropriate definition of root (i.e. can be complex), and when using the appropriate method of counting them (i.e. counting multiplicities).

As for the definition of prime, it is more useful for it to exclude units (e.g. 1 and -1, when living in the integers) than to include units."

The above response dances around the original propositions and seems to admit much of mathematics is contrived by manipulating the definitions of axiomatic terms.

So much for intellectual inquiry.

Should the original post have stimulated query that could be then justified so that all participants could see the folly of one or the other of the participants? Or was the monitor correct in closing the thread and cutting off a response to the moderator's comment?
__________________