And you seem to be forgetting about missing the joke. 
Prime numbers play an important role in information security and especially in the encryption of messages (see cryptography). They are often used in asymmetric cryptosystems such as public-key encryption schemes. Important examples are the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, the RSA cryptosystem used in OpenPGP, among others, the Elgamal cryptosystem and the Rabin cryptosystem. In these, keys are calculated from large, randomly generated prime numbers that must remain secret.
Such algorithms are based on one-way functions that can be executed quickly, but whose inversion is practically impossible to compute with currently known technology. However, new information technologies, for example quantum computers, could change that. The unsolved P-NP problem is related to this. The P-NP problem (also P≟NP, P versus NP) is an unsolved problem in mathematics, specifically complexity theory in theoretical computer science. The question here is whether the set of all problems that can be solved quickly (P {\displaystyle P} P) and the set of all problems for which one can quickly check a proposed solution for correctness (N P {\displaystyle NP} NP) are identical.
Some species of animals and plants (e.g., certain cicadas or spruce trees) reproduce especially strongly in cycles of primes (say, every 11, 13, or 17 years) to make it difficult for predators to adjust to the mass occurrence.
What I am concerned with in this topic is the answering of the question and the following straight argumentation, whether and why the 1 should be counted again to the prime numbers or not. So basically I am concerned with logic and with straight arguments. It is - as I already said - similar to the question whether 1 and 0.999… are equal or not (I say: they are not).
The more ridiculous than serious argument that “1 is not allowed to be a prime number, because 1 is divisible only by itself and 1” actually means that 1 is a prime number, because the definition that “a prime number is divisible only by itself and 1” also applies to 1.
But then it is said that every prime number has two different divisors, but the number 1 has only itself. Yes, but the original definition does not say anything about the separability of the divisors of a prime number, but only that a prime number is divisible only by itself and by 1.
The original definition has been changed so that one can claim afterwards that another definition than the valid one is “too complicated”. In reality, it’s the other way around.
That just sounds like a sign of our times. They do the same with movies and political narratives - keep the name but change the characters and narrative so as to hypnotically rewrite history and people’s beliefs and behaviors (which irritates me to a degree - but I’ll get over it).
And hate to harp on this but - it seems there are two concerns being addressed -
- What should be done
- What is logically correct
The first depends on usefulness - and I don’t see anyone on this board as enough of a mathematician to contribute much of a meaningful response.
And the second is entirely an issue of the declared definition. I dislike people changing definitions (or words) just to manipulate other concerns, but since that one happened long ago - there is little point in arguing about it now. If you were to ask if it is logically correct that someone called a “democrat” supports socialism - I would have to say - “of course not - those are opposites”. But again - just the times we suffer through.
Going back to the original definition of “prime number” (where 1 was not excluded) obviously 1 would still logically qualify (whether mathematicians liked it or not). But living in the present after 1 has been disqualified by newspeak definition of “prime number” - it is obvious that logically 1 cannot be called “prime” any longer. It is like democracy - once it’s gone - it’s gone for good.
Other than some other usefulness issue, I don’t see what else can be said - we live in a time of adopting newspeak so as to accomplish purposes that others dictate. And after any definition has been altered (for whatever reason), the logic must adopt that new definition.
And again - I don’t see how computers would care since they will do whatever they are told regardless of anyone’s defined terminology.
1 should be called something else, because it hasn’t got the properties of primes… of which it lacks the encryptological integrity of.
Perhaps call the other primes - “crypto-primes”. 
The original definition was: “A prime number is a natural number that is divisible exclusively by itself and 1”.
But now the definition is: “A prime number is a natural number that is greater than 1 and divisible exclusively by itself and 1”.
That is cheating!
Perhaps
No rush 
So what do you think that means or is inferring to?
Isn’t that the prevailing morality? - “Thy rules are thus - but not for us.”
If I may answer:
It more or less reflects what we have to deal with more and more in modern times: the rulers enforce everything in the way that suits them best, and this is often to the detriment of all other people. The sciences are becoming more and more dependent, the culture as a whole is becoming more and more victimized.
Agreed.
Absolutely.
_
Indeed, historically many mathematicians up to the nineteenth century thought of 1 as prime – Henri Lebesgue (1875–1941) is usually said to have been the last professional mathematician to call 1 prime. (The Greeks didn’t regard 1 as prime, but that’s because they didn’t regard it as a number at all!)
[size=85]http://www.foster77.co.uk/Foster,%20Mathematics%20in%20School,%20Why%20isn’t%201%20a%20prime%20number.pdf[/size]
Why isn’t 1 a prime number? - Colin Foster
_
[size=85]https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/why-isnt-1-a-prime-number/[/size]
Why Isn’t 1 a Prime Number? - Scientific American Blog Network
2 Apr 2019 — For that reason, 1 couldn’t have been prime — it wasn’t even a number. Ninth-century Arab mathematician al-Kindī wrote that it was not a number and therefore not even or odd. The view that 1 was the building block for all numbers but not a number itself lasted for centuries.
_
2 is prime. Rebuttal: Because even numbers are composite, 2 is not a prime.
- 1 wasn’t considered a number by the Greeks and Arabs? Who knew…
- Why can’t 2 be both prime and composite?
Does the OECD Math Department know about this? I wonder what their take is on such numerical anomalies?
As philosophers, I say we have free-rein on such matters, and declare them as how we see fit.
…and so …I’m relabelling 1, and declaring 2 of dual numerical status. 
What I am curious about is why 1 wasn’t considered a “number”. That just seems bizarre. 
“Four people voted - list the number of votes” -
[list]* 3 votes in favor
[] none against.
[/:m][/list:u]
Maybe it was one of those “perfect fraud-free election” things.
Yes, the number 2 is also a problem. Either we allow the number 1 to be a prime number again, or we also take the number 2 out of the prime number set and say: “Within the whole positive number set, the number 2 can only be divided by itself and by 1, because there is only one positiv number which is smaller than 2”. So then the new definition would be: “A prime number is that integer positive number which is greater than 2 and divisible only by itself and 1”. In this case, the prime numbers would begin with the number 3.
This would lead to other problems. So we should leave it at the first definition, so that 1 and 2 are prime numbers: “A prime number is that integer positive number which is divisible by itself and 1”.
1 was considered a unit, and a number was composed of multiple units, is why.
Lol
Should the number 1 still not be allowed to be a prime number?
You may select 1 option
Yes. 3 43%
No. 4. 57%
I do not care at all. 0. No votes
Total votes : 7
I guess the Mathematician should know what numbers are applicable to use in what calculations and circumstance, regardless of category.
Mathematicians are the ones among scientists who are the least corrupt (well, some people say that mathematics is not a science at all), but scientists want money, and that is why they have been bought more and more.
That had to come from a society far too over-encumbered by semantics. 
The worship of the number 1 can culturally work like a taboo. Ancient Greeks believed that everything is uniform, abyssal, delimited (everything also in the aesthetic sense). The number 1 means “unit”.
Since the conquests of Alexander the Great, the special role of the 1 declined in Ancient Greece.
I don’t see the connection.
Isn’t it more likely that it is the word “unit” that means 1?