--- In

primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Phil Carmody <thefatphil@y...>

wrote:

>

> From: "bhelmes_1" <bhelmes@g...>

> > A beautifull evening,

>

> -6 C, 3pm, and the sun's already set. Beautiful indeed!

The time depends on the country where you live.

If you want to be accurate you can calculate where i would like to

spend my holidays. :-)

> > is the following prime number certificate correct.

> > I used the test of pocklington for a certain kind of prime

numbers.

> I've not checked that your divisors are in fact divisors, I'll

take that as

> read. However, one thing that is technically part of the

pocklington proof is

> the number, a, such that a^((p-1)/d) == r where r is your d-th

root, as given

> above. The d-th root part is less important than the ((p-1)/d)-th

root part,

> i.e. a is more important than r. a is also usually a very small

number, and

> often the same for many d, so a is more convenient for keeping

certificates

> small too.

I thought you can prove faster the certificate, if you give the d-th

roots. If the prime number is greater than 10.000 digits, then you

need a little time for calculating the roots.

I do not know what kind of certifcate is usual. Is it enough to

write down the divisors and an a (than the certificate is very short)

or do you appreciate a little more text like above.

Besides, I need 100 tests for a succesfull 1000 digit prime test.

Is this a good or bad result for searching big primes ?

Nice greetings from the primes

Bernhard