Is 1 Considered a Prime Number?

  • Thread starter the4thcafeavenue
  • Start date
In summary, the definition of a prime number is a natural number that can only be divided by itself and 1. However, there is some debate over whether 1 should be considered a prime number or not. Some sources exclude 1 from the definition, stating that it is a unit rather than a prime. This is to maintain the uniqueness of prime factorization. Other sources include 1 as a prime number, but this is not a widely accepted convention. Ultimately, the classification of 1 as a prime or not is a matter of convention and does not significantly affect the study of prime numbers.
  • #1
the4thcafeavenue
14
0
is "1" considered as a PRIME NUMBER?
thanks :-D
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
the4thcafeavenue said:
is "1" considered as a PRIME NUMBER?
thanks :-D

It depends on whether the definition of a "prime number" stipulates the syntagma "proper divisors".If so,1 is not a prime number,if not,then it is a prime number.

Daniel.
 
  • #3
as long as i know, the definition for prime number is a natural number that is bigger than one and can be divided by only two numbers - itself and one. for example, the number seven is a prime number. it is natural, bigger than 1 and can be divided by itself (7) and one.
 
  • #4
dextercioby said:
It depends on whether the definition of a "prime number" stipulates the syntagma "proper divisors".If so,1 is not a prime number,if not,then it is a prime number.

Daniel.


Apparently it doesn't,but 1 is still not a prime number.Maybe you should have checked this page first?? :tongue2:
1 is not a prime number
However,the definition is not unique:http://odin.mdacc.tmc.edu/~krc/numbers/prime.html There's something weird with this page.According to their definition,1 should be a prime,but in the next line,when they give examples,1 is missing... :confused:
A nice discussion is here:
http://www.mazes.com/primes/one.html
Daniel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
thanks guyz :-D
 
  • #6
The *current* definition is that 1, as it is a unit (divides 1) is not a prime. This the is current convention. At one point it was considered to be a prime, but then for reasons that I suggest come from studying different systems of arithmetic it came to be easier and clearer for the convention to be that 1 is not prime. These other systesms are properly called rings, and in soem rings there are many other numbers that divide 1, and it was necessary to carefully distinhuish between units and non-units especially in decompositions into primes.
 
  • #7
One is not a prime number because it would violate unique prime decomposition. That is 1X1= 1x1x1=1,etc.

But with a prime it only divides a given integer a unique number of times. Thus 54 = (3^3)(2). There is no way that 2 or 3 could divide it a different number of times!

1 AS A PRIME WOULD VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ARITHMETIC.

In fact what had been quoted above, even if somewhat ambigious, tells you as much if you read the whole thing: http://odin.mdacc.tmc.edu/~krc/numbers/prime.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
I think you have it backwards. The wording of the fundamental theorem is based upon the convention that 1 is not a prime. "primeness" as with any other definition of mathematics is purely a convention.
 
  • #9
Well one of the first organized efforts on primes was the Sieve of Eratosthenes, who lived 276BC-194BC; and the method is to write out a successive list of integers beginning with the first prime 2, and when we reach the p prime remaining, to knock out every pth number in the list.

HOWEVER, if one were a prime, we would knock out every number...So the method would not work!
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I would love to know where and when any prominent mathematician has ever defined 1 as a prime. Apparently Euclid not consider 1 as a prime, in fact, he excluded it from his definition of a number. (See reference below.)

There is a website where the author says, I understand that a hundred years or so ago, some books actually said that one was a prime number. I've never seen such a book, but I'd love to see it. http://www.mazes.com/primes/one.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What does "Easy question guyz, dun panik" mean?

"Easy question guyz, dun panik" is a phrase often used sarcastically to mock someone for asking a simple or obvious question. It implies that the question is so easy that there is no need to panic or stress about finding the answer.

2. Why do people use this phrase?

People use this phrase for various reasons. Some may use it as a way to tease their friends or colleagues who ask simple questions. Others may use it as a response to people who ask questions without putting in any effort to find the answer themselves.

3. Is it considered rude to use this phrase?

It depends on the context and the tone in which it is used. If used in a playful and lighthearted manner, it may not be considered rude. However, if used in a condescending or belittling way, it can be perceived as rude and disrespectful.

4. Are there any alternatives to this phrase?

Yes, there are many alternatives to this phrase that can be used in a similar context. Some examples include "That's a no-brainer", "That's a piece of cake", or "It's a no-brainer". These phrases also convey the idea of a question being very easy or simple.

5. Can using this phrase discourage people from asking questions?

In some cases, it may discourage people from asking questions as they may fear being mocked or ridiculed. It is important to create a safe and respectful environment where people feel comfortable asking questions without being judged or belittled.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
357
  • General Math
Replies
17
Views
537
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
548
Replies
1
Views
752
Replies
56
Views
5K
  • General Math
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
764
Replies
1
Views
758
Back
Top