Why would you want to represent an abstract concept like a prime number in a two-dimensional space?

Some of the best proofs are visual. Have you seen the one that shows why the sum of odd numbers from 1 to n is always a perfect square?

What about Cantor's diagonal proof that Aleph-1 is bigger than Aleph-Null?

Plus, there are analog computational engines that can be much faster than digital computers (like the soap film Traveling Salesman solution). I'm thinking about a device that uses the non-rectangular properties of primes to generate them quickly. We need them for cryptography.

And it's fun.

And numbers certainly are abstract. How do you define "one" of anything? Where does its existence stop and another something's existence begin?

That's easy. One is half of two. One is the number that, when multiplied by any other number, produces the same number.

The boundary between "things" is subjective. We decide where one thing stops and another starts.

Also, if you're getting geometric, why limit yourself to a rectangle? Which numbers have sufficient numerators such that they can precisely form a 20-sided, three-dimensional geometric structure? Then you could roll it to see how much damage your broadsword did to the goblin. (Answer: 2 hit points. Then it killed you.)

Plus, I was thinking more along the lines of "Memebag likes pad thai." You're threatening to bring down the whole thread in week one. Why must you be a contrarian?

Why would pad thai be more acceptable than the non-rectangularness of primes? Did you want less abstract objects of my affection?