Firstly, I know this is a silly argument about semantics. BUT.. it still grinds my gears everytime I read an article about prime numbers and not mentioning 1 as a prime number.

I have an argument for 1 actually being a prime number.

Wikipedia's definition of a prime number is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number"A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that cannot be formed by multiplying two smaller natural numbers."

ok, they say greater than 1, right off the bat. Why? seems arbitrary to me.

Here's another definition:

https://www.mathopenref.com/prime-number.html"A prime number is a positive integer that has no integer factors except one and itself. "

https://www.mathopenref.com/prime-number.htmlActually, "1" does fit into this definition, at least from an engineering perspective. So "1" by definition does fit. "1" is divisible aby itself, and only no integer factors except itself. Both conditions met.

Definition.com, I like this website, they give da few definitions.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prime-number"positive integer that is not divisible without remainder by any integer except itself and 1, with 1 often excluded: "

"often excluded", leaves some wiggle room for interpretation.

I think that the main divide in this silly argument is whether or not there have to be two discreet positive divisors. I see these things combined with "common core" math, and role my eyes.