## Background informationEditWe often use phrases like *If I took an entity, unique in its own circumstances, and removed all qualities inherent to its type of entity, and removed all qualities which its surroundings impress upon it, I would be left with a quantity; the number one, would I not?*
Various scholars throughout the ages have accepted this argument, even going as far to do what is who would as it inside to be without when as far to then so. However, recent philosophers, especially linguists, have proposed that "one" is not a number, but yet another quality which we have assigned a special name to, a name which seems to imply numberhood. Furthermore, including "one" in our number system has frequently caused dilemmas in the mathematics and sciences; for example: Is the number one odd or even? Is it prime? These reasons and others bring a widely held notion into question. |

## Is one strictly a quantity?Edit | |

## YesEditConsider another thought experiment. We presume that if a descriptor is not a quantitative one, then it is surely a qualitative one. We presume that the definition of a qualitative descriptor as something which is strictly inherent to |
## NoEditBut that thought experiment is completely nigger. A descriptor can be neither qualitative or quantitative, for example, the descriptor "Being God" is neither because God is everything; including all the other qualitative and quantitative stuff. Same idea with "Being Jesus". Jesus is everything. Also, 27 is an inherent quality of retarded people, so the definition of qualitative is false if they're trying to prove that one's a number. Also, just because you can imagine something doesn't make it real (that will be my next argument). So I don't see how one can't be a quality, nor do I see how such a fine line between qualities and quantities should be drawn. Or even |

## Is one even a thing?Edit | |

## YesEditThis is an awfully silly question. Every |
## NoEditOne is just a stupid synonym for "a" and "the". I could say "Hey, look at the pig" just, even more, easily as I could say "Hey, look at there is one pig". In fact, I doubt that anyone ever says that. Similarly, I could be in the lab making crank and I could say "I need a centiliter of hydrogen peroxide" and my partner could say back to me "Is that point oh a of a liter?" and there would be no confusion. So if one is just a synonym, then one doesn't exist by itself, it is "a" and "the" that exist, and one is just holding on. But you can't say the same thing about the other numbers, I mean, what are you going to say for the number bajillion? You can't say "There is lots of pig" and expect that to be the same as saying "There is bajillion pig". On the one hand you have something unspecific and nontechnical, while on the other you have a specific, well-defined term. Also, one is not a thing because it just isn't popular anymore. People like bigger and bigger numbers, and it is ridiculous to include this guy: $ 1 $ with all the cool guys. |

## Is one compatible with the other numbers?Edit | |

## YesEditOne is undeniably necessary for mathematics. Without it the integers would not be closed under multiplication, and the distinction between prime and composite numbers would be even less clear, not more clear. One is the identity element of all operations higher than addition, but addition is itself defined through repeated additions of the number one. One and e have a very close relationship in calculus, and statistics makes no sense without it; let alone logic. The very foundations of mathematics rely on a subconscious conception of the number one, and though we may not want to accept it, it is clearly there. |
## NoEditLife would be much simpler without one. Imagine going to the store and buying a nice sofa for $79.99. You pay the cashier $80, and then the cashier gives you... Two pennies back! At first he looked confused, but it's obvious. If a number is an integer, and if a number is greater than zero, and if a number is smaller or the same as every other integer greater than zero, then the number is... Two! You're certain that your horse will win the fight? You think you have a 200% chance of winning! Clearly though, that's wrong. And that's a good thing. Not having the number one challenges our ideas about certainty, truth, and precision. |

## Can you count to one?Edit | |

## YesEditYes. 0, 1. Duh. Wait, is zero a number?!? |
## NoEditAttempting to do so will require an infinite amount of time, as to count to one, it would have to be a number. Even if one is to assume one has a place on the number line between zero and two, to count to one it would be necessary to first count to 0.5, and to count to 0.5 it is impossible to skip 0.05, which is impossible without counting to 0.005. one would eventually have to count with units of infinite amounts of zeroes, followed by a five, which is impossible as the numbers being added are so infinitesimally small that they would never reach this hypothetical "one" has anybody ever counted |

## VerdictEditOne may or may not be a number |