this appears to be a very interesting question (but threatens to become a pseudo-question: if one were to try to discuss it "seriously", it seems very likely that people would commit themselves to "taking sides" -- e.g., "your answer is actually just another *consequence* of 2 being the smallest prime [or whatever property one has singled out as the most important one]).

anyhow. i'm with whoever it was that started his philosophy with "draw a distinction": the property of being one more than 1 is not to be sneezed at. it's the reason binary arithmetic is the very lifeblood of "digital" computing (how odd, excuse me, strange, that "digital" suggests "counting on one's fingers" . . .).

keep 'em coming.

From a linguistic point of view, there is definitely something special about the number 2. [I'm relating a story that I read in _The History of Pi_ by Petr Beckman.]

Today we may perceive quantity as either singular or plural, meaning "one" and "more than one," respectively. In man's history, though, there were originally separate concepts for "one," "two," and "more than two," and our languages contain remnants of this. In English, for example, the term for the reciprocal of two is half, but the term for the reciprocal of every number greater than two is the ordinal number derived from the name for that number.

Crazy Al owns a dollar store that isn't like any other dollar store. It's not that everything costs one dollar, it's that everything costs at most one dollar.

The comments to this entry are closed.

## Other blogs I like

• EvolutionBlog
He writes mostly about evolution, but he's a math guy.