Was 1 Ever Considered to Be a Prime Number?
Date: 02/29/2004 at 01:17:19 From: Jim Subject: 1 as a prime number I learned that a prime number was one divisible by only itself and 1, but my 4th grader says that per her book a prime requires 2 different factors. I note your Greek reference for 1 not being prime, which would indicate that I'm wrong and there was no change in definition. However, Ray's New Higher Arithmetic (1880) states, "A prime number is one that can be exactly divided by no other whole number but itself and 1, as 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, etc." Can you tell me when this change happened and why?
Date: 02/29/2004 at 17:39:00 From: Doctor Rob Subject: Re: 1 as a prime number Thanks for writing to Ask Dr. Math, Jim! I believe the 1880 book you cited is wrong--1 has never been and will never be considered a prime. If you treated 1 as a prime, then the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, which describes unique factorization of numbers into products of primes, would be false, or would have to be restated in terms of "primes different from 1." The same is true of many other theorems of number theory and commutative algebra. Rather than use this phrase, it makes more sense to define primes so as not to include 1. Also, the multiplicative inverse of 1 (reciprocal of 1) exists in the positive integers, which is true of no other positive integer. We call such numbers "units," and this property makes them different from non-units. Feel free to reply if I can help further with this question. - Doctor Rob, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
Date: 03/01/2004 at 09:18:44 From: Doctor Peterson Subject: Re: 1 as a prime number Hi, Jim. I'm going to disagree slightly with what Dr. Rob told you: although the definition of prime never SHOULD have included 1, and DIDN'T in the late 20th century, this fact was not always recognized in the relatively distant past. This is discussed here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html The number 1 is a special case which is considered neither prime nor composite (Wells 1986, p. 31). Although the number 1 used to be considered a prime (Goldbach 1742; Lehmer 1909; Lehmer 1914; Hardy and Wright 1979, p. 11; Gardner 1984, pp. 86-87; Sloane and Plouffe 1995, p. 33; Hardy 1999, p. 46), it requires special treatment in so many definitions and applications involving primes greater than or equal to 2 that it is usually placed into a class of its own. A good reason not to call 1 a prime number is that if 1 were prime, then the statement of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would have to be modified since "in exactly one way" would be false because any n = n*1. In other words, unique factorization into a product of primes would fail if the primes included 1. A slightly less illuminating but mathematically correct reason is noted by Tietze (1965, p. 2), who states "Why is the number 1 made an exception? This is a problem that schoolboys often argue about, but since it is a question of definition, it is not arguable." I'm assuming that the references from 1979 on, at least, say that primes were formerly defined to include 1, rather than using that definition themselves. Texts, also, may not always be careful about definitions; your "divisible by only itself and 1" may well be intended to imply that "itself and 1" are not the same number, or the question of whether 1 is a prime may not have been considered. Here is another discussion of this question that I found: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=1379707 Read especially John Conway's contributions, which point out that mathematicians recognized the need to clarify the definition when certain aspects of abstract algebra developed in the 1900's, which gave them a new perspective on the question; but that school texts, as usual, were slow to adopt the corrected definition: The change gradually took place over this century [the 1900's], because it simplifies the statements of almost all theorems. If you count 1 as a prime, for example, numbers don't have unique factorizations into primes, because for example 6 = 1 times 2 times 3 as well as 2 times 3. It's a bit of a nuisance that Lehmer's 1914 "List of all prime numbers below 10 million" counts 1 as a prime. I think the development of number theory for other rings played a big part, because there one finds other "units" besides 1 (for instance +-1 and +-i in the Gaussian integers), and these units clearly behave in many ways that make them different from the primes. Other examples of the kind of thing that goes wrong if you count 1 as a prime are arithmetical theorems like "If p,q,r,... are distinct primes, then the number of divisors of p^a.q^b.r^c.... is (a + 1)(b + 1)(c + 1)... ." Mathematicians this century [the 1900's] are generally much more careful about exceptional behavior of numbers like 0 and 1 than were their predecessors: we nowadays take care to adjust our statements so that our theorems are actually true. It's easy to find lots of statements in 19th century books that are actually false with the definitions their authors used - one might well find the above one, for instance, in a work whose definitions allowed 1 to be a prime. Nowadays, we no longer regard that as satisfactory. The changeover has been very gradual, and I'll bet there are publications from the last few years in which 1 is still counted as a prime--in other words, it's not yet complete. In the 1950s and 1960s, books that chose the new definition would always be careful to point out that they were doing so, and that most authors included 1 with the primes. The real thing that gets such a change accepted is when it gets into high-school textbooks. I think that perhaps we must thank "the new math" movement, which for all its faults did get some of the terminology and conventions into the high schools that had hitherto only been used in the Universities. School textbooks don't like to muddy the waters by explaining such things as variations in usage, so would tend to give just one definition. My guess is that you'll find that schoolbooks of the 1950s defined primes so as to include 1, while those of the 1970s explicitly excluded 1. It sounds like your textbooks, and mine, might have used the old definition! If you have any further questions, feel free to write back. - Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
Search the Dr. Math Library:
Ask Dr. MathTM
© 1994- The Math Forum at NCTM. All rights reserved.