Misconception in taking Pumping Length of language {a} to be $2$ I would like to know why the pumping length of language {a} is $2$ as said in this chat discussion.

Eventhough this discussion proves  trivially  that the pumping length of language {a} is $2$ I couldn't get by an example how the pumping length of language {a} becomes $2$.Could anyone help me with an example.
Informally, the pumping lemma for regular languages state that any sufficient large string may be pumped.

Your language is finite, meaning if you pick a pumping length that is larger than any string in your language, the lemma is trivially true. In your example the pumping length is $2$ but there are no strings in your language of length at least two. So you can pump all strings of length $2$ or longer (there are none!).

If you try and pick a smaller pumping length (the only possibility is $1$) then you will find that you can not pump. $w = a$ is your only string and the only possible decompsition $w=xyz$ is $x=\epsilon$, $y=a$, $z=\epsilon$. You can't however pump that because e.g. $\epsilon$ and $aa$ is not in your language.

Therefore; $2$ is the minimal pumping length of the language $\{a\}$