Changed wrong/confusing prime factors instructions

[ananaft]

Issue: The current instructions consider 4 a possible prime factor, despite it not being a prime number.

Fix: Remove lines mentioning 4 as a possible factor.

[wolf99]

I think perhaps you have misunderstood. This sentence is explaining that 4 is a possible factor of 60 but that it is not a prime number so 4 should be discounted.

[ananaft]

The current wording makes it seem like the exclusion criterion for the number 4 is the fact that it does not go cleanly into 5. This at least made me double check the exact definition of prime factors elsewhere before continuing with the exercise.

[ananaft]

I now realize that the current wording serves as a good hint on how to possibly design the solution algorithm. Checking whether a possible factor is actually a prime number would be redundant. I sincerely apologize for being nitpicky and possibly bothersome. Thank you for your time, nonetheless!

[siebenschlaefer]

@ananaft No worries.

BTW the description and tests cases of the practice exercises come from the language-agnostic problem-specifications repository.

If you want to report an error or suggest an improvement that is not specific to the C track please post on the forum first before creating an issue or pull request. That's where the maintainers want to keep these discussions.

[ananaft]

Thanks for the information!