Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Phil.s speculation

Expand Messages
  • dkandadai
    Phil has replied to me saying that perhaps a counter-example to the indirect p.test can be found.I had replied I hereby challenge anyone to produce one . He
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 4, 2008
      Phil has replied to me saying that perhaps a counter-example to the
      indirect p.test can be found.I had replied " I hereby challenge anyone
      to produce one". He has requested me to make it public. In my latest
      reply to him I was perhaps a bit rude for which I feel sorry.
      Anyway my challenge stands.
      Devaraj
    • Phil Carmody
      ... You need to first prove that it is actually primality test rather than, for example, an exponential-time factoring algorithm. The latter would be of no
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 5, 2008
        --- On Tue, 8/5/08, dkandadai <dkandadai@...> wrote:
        > Phil has replied to me saying that perhaps a counter-example
        > to the
        > indirect p.test can be found.I had replied " I hereby
        > challenge anyone
        > to produce one". He has requested me to make it
        > public. In my latest
        > reply to him I was perhaps a bit rude for which I feel
        > sorry.
        > Anyway my challenge stands.

        You need to first prove that it is actually primality test rather than, for example, an exponential-time factoring algorithm. The latter would be of no interest to anyone.

        Phil
      • dkandadai
        -Since the test is an indirect one we do not test the p. suspect itself.What we do by programming the failure functions is just to check that the functions do
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 5, 2008
          -Since the test is an indirect one we do not test the p. suspect
          itself.What we do by programming the failure functions is just to
          check that the functions do or do not cover the relevant x value of
          the suspect. If x is covered it is composite if not it is prime.The
          logic:
          Every time f(x), in the case of x^2 +1 or x^2 + x +1, is composite
          one of its factors is less than x; hence it must be generated by one
          or more of the failure functions. In other words the method is like
          a sieve. Trust this is clear.



          -- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, dkandadai <dkandadai@...> wrote:
          > > Phil has replied to me saying that perhaps a counter-example
          > > to the
          > > indirect p.test can be found.I had replied " I hereby
          > > challenge anyone
          > > to produce one". He has requested me to make it
          > > public. In my latest
          > > reply to him I was perhaps a bit rude for which I feel
          > > sorry.
          > > Anyway my challenge stands.
          >
          > You need to first prove that it is actually primality test rather
          than, for example, an exponential-time factoring algorithm. The
          latter would be of no interest to anyone.
          >
          > Phil
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.