The importance of being specific

         In my post  Is 1 a prime number ? ,
I spoke of how since 1 is not a perfect
number, 1 is also not a prime number.
But, 1 is not a perfect number only if
you assume that it has 2 factors :
1 & 1.
         But some mathematicians argue
that you cannot repeat the factor.
Others argue that this repetition has been
forced by the definition that those very
mathematicians produced.
           This is what this post is about :
Re-enforcing mathematical definition.
Take for example, the quadrilaterals,
all the shapes with 4 sides.
           In school, we are forced to learn
all about how every square is a rectangle
but not every rectangle need be a square.
           If the people who defined these
shapes had, in the first place, used the
word ONLY, then life would have been
far easier. Take a look :

Rectangle - A quadrilateral with ONLY
                   the opposite sides equal.

           Then, obviously a square cannot
be a rectangle because it has 6 pairs of
equal sides and consecutive sides are equal.
           Now back to the top.
If the definition of factors had been clearly
stated anyway, we wouldn't have the tiniest
argument in the factors of 1.
          One could say 1 has an infinitely
large number of factors; a line of 1's
multiplied together.