>>42171660This is frequently misunderstood, but only because you're using the wrong definition of a prime number. The right definition is: A positive integer p is a prime number if, whenever p divides a product a_1*a_2*...*a_n, it divides at least one of the factors a_1, ..., a_n. Suppose, for a contradiction, that 1 is a prime. Consider the empty product, i.e., take n = 0. The empty product is 1 (because 1 is the multiplicative identity), and 1 divides itself. So, by the assumption that 1 is prime, 1 must divide one of the factors of the empty product. But there are no such factors, so this is a contradiction. Therefore 1 is not a prime.
Now that I've proved you wrong, you both owe me sex.