Re: [PrimeNumbers] Miller-Rabin question...
- eliasen@... wrote:
>Thank you for the reassurance that I wasn't doing all of this wrong.
> David Cleaver wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > We've all heard of the results that for all numbers up to
> > z=341550071728321, we can prove primality by running 8 MR tests
> > the first 8 consecutive prime bases (cpb's), right? And we've also
> > heard that 9 gives no improvement, right? Well, I've run into
> > curious. I recently wrote my own program to run MR on the first k
> > and found that z is "prime" by 8 cpb's, but it is not "prime" by 9
> > cpb's. (ie, we do get an improvement with 9 cpb's.)
> > Am I mis-understanding something somehwere?
> Probably. I don't know how you're counting primes, or where you
> got the
> above information, but it doesn't seem right.
I've found where I got my "mis"-information. It was at mathworld:
On that page it said "the first 8 primes (using 9 gives no improvement)"
and I took that for granted.
Sorry for the confusion everyone. BTW, does anyone know how to contact
Eric W. to let him know of this small typo on his web page?
> Testing against bases
> 2,3,5,7,11,13,17 is sufficient to prove primality for all numbers <
> 341550071728321. Testing against base 19 gives no additional
> Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a
> eliasen@... | position he did not reason himself
> http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place."
> | --Jonathan Swift