Why is not 1 prime number?

We have all heard about the prime number. These are called the basic numbers in Bengal. From the name, we understand that prime is some fundamental basis of the numbers, which are broken when there is no similar thing, and by which other composite numbers are formed. These are much like the illuminated basic substances of chemistry, such as composite molecules that are formed by different types of basic atoms. For example, hydrogen is a basic substance and oxygen is a basic substance. The atoms of these two basic substances combine to form a whole number of pairs, which is a composite material. Or, on the contrary, two basic elements of hydrogen and oxygen are found in the breaking of the water. In mathematics, the prime number and the prime thing work the same way. Two non-basic two full numbers can be analyzed as multiple products of different or different types of products. However, the number of exceptions in this number can be different from prime prime factors and may be the same. There is another exception to the case of the prime, many of which have questions and confusions. That is: 1 prime number is not!

1 will not be called Prime? 1 is the unit of number formation. Any integer comes in the form of any integer. That means each serial number increments by 1 and we can add one more gradation to one that can create a normal full number. If there is any basic unit of numbers, then it is 1. But even then 1 has not been recognized as a Prime because 1 if there is a prime, there are virtually none of the basic mathematical calculations or theorem of the orbit. Let's discuss the details now one more.

The first reason for not being a prime is the definition of the prime. Strategically defining the definition of the prime (!) One has been omitted. The definition of a prime: "The normal number of prime numbers is greater than one and the number is not divisible by the number one and that number". Since the beginning of the definition has been said that to be prime, there must be a number greater than the number one prime not one prime. But in the reader's mind the question is that people have defined the definition. If you do not exclude one from the list during the defining definition, then continue. Let's see if the one is actually forcibly removed.

Prime idea was first formally presented by mathematician Euclid when he was thinking about "Perfect Numbers". His research was needed to know when the whole number could be divided into a whole number, and therefore he had to find out the numbers which are not bigger than the one. After studying these numbers, he described the fundamental theorem of Arithmetic.

"Every full number can only be expressed in the same way as the product of its prime producers, where the order of the producers is certain."

The phrase "only in one way" in this theorem is very important. For example, we consider the number 21. We analyzed this issue by analyzing its prime product.

The order of 21 = 3 × 7 and the output 3 and 7 is specified. That is, 3 and 7 changes in the order, although it can be written as 21 = 7x3, but it is possible to write it only in the same way because the order is fixed from small to large. Now if we recognize 1 number as prime then 1 in 21 is to be included.

21 = 1 × 3 × 7

Neither

21 = 1 × 1 × 3 × 7

This equation can be aborted as I like.

21 = 1 × 1 × 3 × 7

21 = 1 × 1 × 1 × 3 × 7

21 = 1 × 1 × 1 × 1 × 3 × 7

----------

So, if the number 1 is assumed to be prime, then the fundamental theorem of the Arithmetic is in danger. That is, an absolute number can not be expressed as "the product of the prime product" in the same way, but it is being expressed in an infinite number of ways. Then the basic requirement of the prime number is not necessarily the basis of it. Because the prime number is considered to be the specific base of other numbers.

But it still remains to be spoken. According to arithmetic theorem, if 1 is not considered as prime then why we are not changing the theorem! Mathematics for theoretical or theorem for mathematics? There are reasonable thoughts and ideas. Of course, this is the same reasoning idea for the Prime. Prime is not a math, but a math for mathematics. There is no such thing as to change the theorem to include 1 in Prime. Instead, we could only consider the prime numbers as a list of numbers, which include numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 .... Etc. and we did not consider 1 as per our wishes.

There is another important thing here. If we look at the arithmetic theorem, then we will see 1 even the integers are not included! Because, according to the theorem, each complete number can be expressed as the product of the prime product.

Eg: 81 = 3 × 3 × 3 × 3

27 = 3 × 3 × 3

9 = 3 × 3

3 = 3

1 = -

The above equations show that 81, 27, 9, 3 have 4, 3, 2 and 1 basic product, respectively. Whereas, there is no fundamental factor (hence the value of a number is zero if its value is 1.) So the theorem is included in the complete number of 1:

"Every full number greater than 1 can be expressed only in the same way as the product of its prime producers, where the order of the producers is certain."