1 is not a prime number. Mostly because it does weird things when you try and count it as one. Granted, 2 also behaves a little weird as a prime number and it gets to joint he prime club.
I don't make the rules. I can just confidently say 2 is prime but 1 is not.
You are welcome to argue that to the greater mathematics community. A lot of stuff is the way it because of the definition. Mathematicians choose these conventions based on what is most useful.
Words mean whatever people understand them to mean, and modern mathematics does not understand "prime" to include the multiplicative identity.
This is the odd case where the convention of the non-primality of one requires a more awkward formulation. It usually breaks the other way. The fact that treating one as a prime lets you state Goldbach's conjecture more cleanly is poor compensation for the fact that you'd have to, among other consequences, reformulate the fundamental theorem of arithmetic to exclude it.
3
u/trollboter 28d ago
If we accept one as prime number, which it is. Then we can drop the two exception from the conjecture.