Thank you for your comment—it brings up some interesting points, but in a way that illustrates the very misunderstanding I articulated. The purpose of the article wasn’t to argue for 1 being considered prime, but to explore how mathematics is a self-consistent system built on human-made definitions. These definitions, like the choice to exclude 1 from being prime, are conventions that serve practical purposes—they are not inherent truths about numbers.

By insisting that others’ preferences are 'wrong,' we miss an important opportunity to reflect on the nature of these conventions. Mathematics is not just about arriving at definitive answers but about understanding the reasoning behind those answers and how they shape the discipline.

The inclusion of 1 as prime, or not, is far more subtle than redefining + as subtraction, which is a silly false equivalence barely worth commenting on.

Humans too often frame debates like this in terms of rigid right-or-wrong dichotomies. This tendency says more about us than it does about the mathematics, and it risks shutting down nuanced conversations where we could instead learn something deeper—both about the subject and about how we think.