ITT: We post simple and beautiful math

I'm a brainlet and even I know what it means. You should be ashamed of yourself.

But for p=1 sin(pi/p) is zero.. so it isn´t actually >0. Where´s my mistake?

y=ax+b

>simple and beautiful
>clearly a joke about how math results are sometimes shown in unnecessarily complex and ugly ways

by inspection there's more than 1 prime, senpai

it may be complex but it's certainly not ugly
it's just a way of compacting many basic number theory sentences in one quantity, what's not to love about that ?

also, i seem to have answered without really looking at your point, in fact, it is easier to prove that 1 is not a prime

>Where´s my mistake?
Your "mistake" is assuming 1 is prime. It isn't, because mathfags are retarded.

Because there is no reason to use pi or sin. Can someone post that image showing the process of an engineer making 1+1 = 2 (or something like that) into a valid "engineering identity"? I think that would get my point across to you that the formula is both complex and ugly, and that there is nothing inherently good about "compacting many basic number theory sentences in one quantity." Here especially, it is inappropriate. In fact, it is so inappropriate, that it is clear to everyone involved in the mathematics community that its complexity and ugliness is meant as a joke.

yes there is, that's where you seemingly didn't get the point, or you got it but don't want to admit that the proof does a clever use of the quantity
the [math]\sin[/math] here is used because of its many properties, which serve the excellence of this "proof without words" :
- [math]\sin(x)=\sin(x+2\pi k)[/math]
-[math]\sin(\pi k )=0[/math]
where [math]k\in\mathbb{Z}[/math]
these, indeed, are basic properties of the where [math]\sin[/math] function but are essential in this proof
But if your argument is "why not just be happy with Euclid proof alone ?" then I will just answer "that's the point"