You’d also remove every other prime number, since in general we can say that a prime isn’t divisible by a smaller prime.
That we have to add “except 1” to both the factoring theorem and the definition of prime itself is why we don’t include 1 as a prime.
If it is considered to be a prime, then you end up with a lot of theorems that start "for all primes p != 1" or "for all odd primes != 1".
If it is not considered to be a prime, you end up with other theorems that start "for all primes and 1" or "for all odd primes and 1".
There are more really important theorems in the former set than the latter set and so considering it to not be prime became the convention.
1 is a unit.
In particular, the papers "What is the smallest prime?" https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2007 and "The History of the Primality of One: A Selection of Sources" https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL15/Caldwell2/cald6.h... have good history on the matter (e.g. 1, 2, and 3 were all answers at various points — note that at some point in history 1 wasn't even considered a number).
- A prime number is a positive prime element of Z
- A prime element is an element p which is not a unit such that whenever p divides ab then p divides a or p divides b (or both)
- An element which generates a prime ideal is a prime element
- A ring divided by a prime ideal is an integral domain
- All integral domains have a field of fractions
- The zero ring is not a field
Make 1 a prime at the first step and things go wrong at the final step. Most of these definitions have a good argument, except the first arbitrarily excludes the non-positive numbers. This includes 0 which is a perfectly acceptable prime according to all other definitions (and unlike the negative primes, is not simply the negative of a prime number).
I realize the definition of fields usually includes the axiom 0 != 1, but I think this is just as arbitrary as “1 is not prime”.
You can even extend this to scheme theory, where Spec of the zero ring is the empty set, and conversely the zero ring is the ring of regular functions on the empty set. Note that the empty set is always open in the Zariski topology!
Anyway I’m not actually seriously advocating for this position, just that it does seem to be consistent.
There is quite a lot of research on a zero field, which shows up sometimes (never as a conceret object, but more like A_p is to the field of p elements what A_0 is to the zero field). Apparently you can't just use the zero ring, though the reasons why are beyond my pay-grade.
But it is part of a general pattern that certain objects are "too simple to be simple" [0].
Here "simple" should be thought of as atomic, indecompossible, without smaller parts.
- prime numbers are simple wrt multiplication, 1 is too simple to be prime
- the zero ring is too simple to be a field
- the trivial group is too simple to be a simple group
- the empty topological space is not connected
- etc...
It turns out that if one adheres to this convention, then theorem statements generally become shorter, and have fewer side conditions.
Why would they choose a definition so that 1 is not a prime? They found it the best and most useful definition that they knew at that time.
While there are many bad definitions, concepts and names in math, I don't think prime number is an example.
Also please notice that sometimes the more useful concepts have longer definitions, especially if one limits themselves in the terms they want to define it. (That is they don't use the nicest properties to define prime numbers, but they define them as:)
A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers. [0]
Therefore it makes sense to classify numbers as either primes (they are their own unique factorization), or composites (they are the result of the multiplication of other numbers, and the factorization may or may not be unique), or units (numbers that have an inverse). 1 is the only unit of the natural numbers.
If you add negative integers, this results into all negated primes being also primes, and there is no unique factorization (for example 6 is 2*3 but also -2*-3).
To the question "why professionals use the tool they use instead of a slightly different version of that tool", the answer is either:
- they like it, or
- they don't like it, but they still use it, say for historic reasons
In this particular split of the prime numbers there are 3 categories, and 2 is the only member of one of the categories, while the rest are evenly divided. So it's a solitary outlier.
• When you work modulo 4 (as in the article in the context where this comes up), there are three kinds of primes: 2 is a solitary outlier, and all other primes are equally distributed between being 1 and 3 mod 4.
• When you work modulo 10, there are six kinds of primes: 2 and 5 are outliers, and all other primes are equally distributed between being 1, 3, 7 and 9 mod 10.
So 2 is an outlier when working mod 4 (or any even number). Mod 4 is crucially important in the context of quadratic reciprocity, so it matters here.
but what puzzles me is that 11,13,17,19 are primes just like 101,103,107,109
but the real punchline is that 23 is the next prime after 19 AND 113 is the next prime after 109. WHY!?
this must be connected to 2*5
but I only have questions and confusion
We can generalize this. There are 2 kinds of primes with respect to mod. Those whose modulo x for x large is 2 or 5, and those whose mod x falls into some other odd number. Of the latter numbers, the more primes you consider the more it looks like a uniform distribution. This is related to the Riemann hypothesis [1].
But for the purposes of this article; we have that x=4.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwe4-OiRw7M