is the number 1 a prime number?

Under the modern treatment of mathematics, 1 is not considered a prime, but rather a unit. It was considered a prime earlier in the history of mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number#Primalit...

0 is not prime.

1 is not prime, simply because the definition of prime contains the condition that the number be greater than 1 (that rules out 0 as well)

This decision is not arbitrary. There are lots of beautiful and deep theorems about prime numbers. But most of the statements of those theorems would have to include awkward footnotes if 1 were allowed to be prime.

For example, the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic says that every positive integer can be factored into a product of primes in exactly one way (not counting the order of the factors.)

So to factor 100, one person might proceed: 100 = 2x50=2x2x25=2x2x5x5

another person might proceed 100 = 10x10 =2x5x2x5

no matter how you proceed, you will end up with the same factors.

but what if we allowed 1 to be a prime? you could also have

100 = 2x2x5x5x1

100 = 2x2x5x5x1x1

100 = 2x2x5x5x1x1x1

etc. The theorem would have to include the footnote ( "except for factors of 1")

As for 0, number theory is a subject about the positive integers, so 0 just doesn't enter into the discussion. Besides, 0 has lots of factors other than itself and 1:

0 = 2x5x7x0

0 = 5x13x89x0x0

Certainly not the way a prime number ought to behave!

a prime number is a (positive) integer that has no other (positive) factors besides itself AND 1.

the AND in the definition is crucial, and explains why 1 is not a prime.

if 1 was considered to be a prime, then the factorization of a (positive) integer would not be unique:

2 = 1*2 = 1*1*2 = 1*1*1*2, etc. (you get the picture).

it would make no sense to talk about the number of prime factors of a number, because we would always have all these bothersome factors of 1 clouding the waters.

0 is super-duper not prime, because ANY positive integer divides 0 evenly:

0/k = 0.

the whole point of primes is that they are like "atoms" in the number world, they are building blocks of other numbers.

0 and 1 are special, and there are a lot of rules that have special exceptions for 0 and 1.

no you must have two(only) numbers that divide into the 1 since you cannot divide by 0 1 is not a prime. Same reason 0 is not prime.

1 is not considered to be a prime number. However, this has not always been the case.

0 is not a prime number. The difinition of a prime would require it to be divisible by itself and division by zero is undefined.

The first prime number is 2.

No, one (1) is not a prime number.A prime number is defined as being divisible only by one and the number itself. In the case of the number one, 1 is all it can be divisible by as 1 is itself. The only common factor is 1 itself so it is therefore not considered to be a prime number. The same thing with 0 it can only be divisible by 0.

common guys ffs r u that dumb

,No, one (1) is not a prime number.

A prime number is defined as being divisible only by one and the number itself. In the case of the number one, 1 is all it can be divisible by as 1 is itself. The only common factor is 1 itself so it is therefore not considered to be a prime number

Neither 0 nor 1 is a prime number.

The first prime number is 2.

Neither 0 nor 1 are prime numbers. 1 is not because if it were, it would cause problems with the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

NO

by definition a prime number has exactly 2 factors (1 and itself)