Prime Numbers were primarily studied by Greeks.

This set for numbers, being so random and irregular, has enticed mathematicians for centuries for making calculations, patterns and then to prove them. The study of primes gets in different ways of mathematical thinking from simplest patterns to using statistics and counting techniques. The difference between prime and composite numbers was seen in the seventh book of Euclids Elementa in 300B.C. The first result regarding primes came from the ninth book of Elementa which says There are infinitely many prime numbers. One of the proofs of this theorem is: Consider that there are finite number of primes, say, p1, p2, ..., pn. Let P be the product of all the prime numbers in the set: P = p1p2...pn. Let q = P + 1. Then, q is either prime or not:

If q is prime then there is at least one more prime than is listed. If q is not prime then some prime factor p divides q. If this factor p were on our list, then it would divide P (since P is the product of every number of the set); but as we know, p divides P + 1 = q. If p divides P and q then p would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is (P + 1) P or just 1. But no prime number divides 1. So there would be a contradiction, and therefore p cannot be on the list. This means at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the set.

This proves that for every finite set of prime numbers, there is a prime number not on the set. Therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.

In about 200 B.C, Eratosthenes gave an algorithm for calculating primes called the Sieve of Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes sieve drained off composites and left primes behind. In the algorithm 1 was not considered probably because prime numbers were a set which were greater than 1. Eratosthenes put numbers in a grid, and then crossed out all multiples of numbers until the square root of the largest number in the grid is crossed out. For example, with a grid of 1 to 50, you would cross out the multiples of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, since 7 is the square root of 49. Since 6, 8, 9 and 10 are multiples of other numbers; you no longer need to worry about those multiples. So for this chart, you would cross out the multiples of 2, 3, 5 and 7. With these multiples crossed out, the only numbers that remain and are not crossed out are prime. Then came the period the period of Dark ages when intellect and science were suppressed therefore no further work was done in the field. In the 17th century Mathematicians like Fermat and Euler began to explore the pattern that existed in primes. He proved what is called Fermat's Little Theorem i.e.
1

If p is a prime then for any integer a we have ap = a modulo p i.e. if p is a prime, and 1ap, then ap-a is a multiple of p. For example, if a=4 and p=7, then 47-4=16,380 and 16,380=7 x 2340 proving that 7 is a prime.

This proves one half of what has been called a Chinese hypothesis which was given about 2000 years before Fermat, that an integer n is prime if and only if the number 2n - 2 is divisible by n. The other half of this is false, since, for example, 2341 - 2 is divisible by 341 even though 341 = 31 11 is composite. Fermat's Little Theorem is the basis for many other results in Number Theory and is the basis for methods of checking whether numbers are prime which are still in use on today's electronic computers. Fermats Little theorem also failed when R.D Carmichael in1912, found out Carmichael Numbers that were composites (false primes) which satisfied Fermats theorem. For example numbers such as 561 (3 x 11 x 17), 1105 (5 x 13 x17), etc which satisfied Fermat. [1] Fermat also came up with another form, that the numbers 2n + 1 were always prime if n is a power of 2 and he knew that if n were not a power of 2, the result failed. It was verified for n = 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16. Numbers of this form are called Fermat numbers and it was not until 1729, Goldbach asked Euler about Fermat's conjecture by 1732 that the next case 232 + 1 = 4294967297 is divisible by 641 and so is not prime. [2] His proof was : 232 + 1 = (16)228 + 1 = (641 - 54)28 + 1 = 641m - (5 x 27)4 + 1 = 641m - (641 - 1)4 + 1 = 641n - 1 + 1 = 641n

Initially it was thought that numbers of the form Mn = 2n -1 were prime, then n must be a prime but in 1536, this work was squashed when Hudalricus Regius showed that 211-1 = 2047 was not prime as it was the product of 23 and 89. A French monk, Marin Mersenne stated that such numbers were prime for n = 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 127, 257 and were composite for all other values of n less than 257. He was wrong, but still got his name attached to these numbers, so we call 2n-1 the nth Mersenne number, or Mn. A major use of Mersenne numbers is in the search for the largest prime, for almost all of the largest known primes in history have been Mersenne primes. [3] The largest known prime number is 2257,885,161 1, a number with 17,425,170 digits.

In 1537, Euler came up with the proof of the divergence of the series of reciprocal of primes to log[log(n)]. Other than him Gauss and Legendre worked on the density of primes. Legendre gave an estimate for (n) the number of primes n of (n) = n/(log(n) - 1.08366)

while Gauss's estimate is in terms of the logarithmic integral was: (n) = (1/log(t) dt where the range of integration is 2 to n.

On comparing both the functions by them, the error in Gausss function is much more than Legendres function. Despite of this, the rate of increase of Legendres error is much more than Gauss. In spite of these few errors Gauss function provides an amazing form for the density of primes. Therefore, the basic controversy or crises behind prime numbers is that till date, nobody has been able to come up with the concept of a general form for these numbers. Many theorems have come up as we see but somehow, have had glitches and therefore ones form has been proved wrong by the other.

References:
[1]: http://www.maths.lancs.ac.uk/~jameson/carfind.pdf [2]: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Printonly/Euler.html [3]: http://uzweb.uz.ac.zw/science/maths/zimaths/prime.htm]

http://www.livescience.com/34526-prime-numbers.html http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Prime_numbers.html The Development of Prime Number Theory: From Euclid to Hardy and Littlewood Karl Smith ,Nature of Mathematics, Page 192