You have never given neither definition nor rationale for it except references to some unknown authority, everything you have done so far is you have shown your faithful commitment into what you were told ex cathedra. I repeat once again, bring definition _and_ rationale behind it, definition without rationale isn't what we talked here before you single-handedly decided to coerce everyone to accept your point of view using advantage of the first move.
Aleksej, Joerg is correct by definition. It's as simple as that. 0 and 1 are not prime. Full-stop.
The following explanations may help you to understand the definition of "prime" common in the literature and how this relates to 0 and 1:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57036.html http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58723.htmlIf you disagree with these as well, I welcome you to publish a proof in a math journal (not here) to the contrary. You may find yourself heavily criticised by your reviewers. This is not a matter of progressive thinking or differing "schools", but simple math.
The debate for non-positive numbers is merely one of potential confusion to users not well-versed in mathematics.
Thank you, Kristaps