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

Re: Phil.s speculation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Aug 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      -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.